Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of paying tribute to our colleagues who are leaving the Senate. There are some 10 of our colleagues who are leaving under various circumstances. I would like to speak about them and to express my deep appreciation for their friendship, for the years we have worked together, or opposed each other, as the case may be, on various matters that have come before this body. Mr. President, of course, we all have great affection for Senator Thurmond, who has served here for 54 years and is on the brink of celebrating his 100th birthday--a remarkable achievement in and of itself. As someone once said, if they had known they would have lived that long, they would have taken better care of themselves. And Strom Thurmond took very good care of himself over the years. Senator Max Cleland, a remarkable person, has served here for only 6 years, representing the State of Georgia. He has done a remarkable job during his years here. But he has had a distinguished record, of course, that has accumulated prior to his arrival in the Senate. Senator Jesse Helms, with whom I have served on the Foreign Relations Committee for my entire service, my 22 years in the Senate. He has served for 30 years here. We have been the best of colleagues serving together. Senator Bob Torricelli of New Jersey; Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, with whom I have served on the Banking Committee; Senator Jean Carnahan, who has had a brief service here but has done a wonderful job representing the State of Missouri; Senator Frank Murkowski, with whom I was elected to the Senate 22 years ago; Senator Fred Thompson from the State of Tennessee; Senator Bob Smith; Senator Tim Hutchinson-- these are the 10 Members who are leaving. Strom Thurmond Mr. President, regarding Senator Thurmond, I spoke back a number of weeks ago about Senator Thurmond in our wonderful tribute to him. He is truly an institution within this institution. I have known Senator Thurmond since I was very young. My father and he served together here for 12 years. I have served with him for 22 years. So for 34 years Senator Thurmond has had to serve with a Dodd in the U.S. Senate of his 54 years. I know of no one who has had as varied and as distinguished a career in public service. When you think of his contribution as an educator, as a Governor, as a combat war veteran--and not young at the time of D- Day, I might add, but nonetheless showed great heroism--and serving, as I mentioned, as a Governor of his State, and, of course, in the Senate for so many years, and as a judge--truly a remarkable individual--and elected to the Senate under various banners over the years--as a Democrat, as a Dixiecrat, as a Republican, as a write-in candidate-- truly a remarkable achievement. I've heard it suggested that they might have to rename the State of South Carolina; there have been so many monuments to his public service. There are schools, roads, bridges, parks all through the State of South Carolina that bear the name of Strom Thurmond. That is because, of course, he is held with such incredible affection by the people of that State. We have had our differences on substantive matters, but he has always been a tremendous gentleman and a wonderful friend. He is a good friend to my family as well. I wanted to take a couple minutes to say thank you to a remarkable individual, a remarkable American. I know that he has great affection for this institution and its Members. I wish him the very best of health and, I want him to know we will all miss him very much. Max Cleland I also want to pay tribute to our colleague from Georgia, Max Cleland. I know very few people who have as many heroic qualities as Max Cleland does. It is not by pure circumstance that I mention Strom Thurmond and Max Cleland next to each other. I mentioned the fact that Strom Thurmond served his country with great distinction in military service during World War II. Max Cleland, of course, served his Nation with great distinction during the Vietnam conflict and, of course, paid a terrible price for that service. Just a month shy of completing his tour of duty, he suffered the terrible loss of both legs and an arm. Yet despite those physical injuries, and the obstacles they presented, Max Cleland has made a remarkable contribution to this institution, to the people of his home state of Georgia. Max Cleland is truly an American hero, not just because he wore the uniform of the United States and served in combat and suffered a terrible loss. He is an American hero because of his willingness and desire to serve the people of his country in a continuing fashion beyond that of a military uniform. He has done so in the State of Georgia, holding office there as well as here in the Senate. I don't know of anyone who is held in such a high regard and with such respect by all of us as Max Cleland. One of Senator Cleland's favorite poets, William Butler Yeats, once wrote: ``Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart.'' In the case of Max Cleland, his enormous sacrifice to his country only emboldened his golden nature, and increased his desire to dedicate himself to improving the lives of others. I will miss him very much. When the 108th Congress convenes, it just won't seem quite right that Max Cleland is not among us--he has a wonderful sense of humor, a great sense of history, a great love of his country. I deeply regret the people of Georgia didn't see fit to send him back to serve with us. I don't know his successor. I am sure he is a fine person. I am sure he won't mind if I say I am going to miss Max very much, but I know I have a lifelong friend in Max Cleland. Just prior to coming back to Washington, it was announced that Max and Nancy are going to be wed. My wife Jackie and I wish both of them the best in the years ahead. Jesse Helms I also want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague from North Carolina, Senator Jesse Helms. I don't know of anyone here I probably disagreed with more over the past 22 years than Jesse Helms. But I also don't know of anyone with whom I have had a better relationship over the last 22 years. I know that sounds somewhat of a contradiction to people who watch this institution, that people with whom you can have profound and significant disagreements can also be people you hold in high regard and respect. Senator Jesse Helms and I have fought tooth and nail on almost every issue I can think of. But I don't know of a finer gentleman, a more decent human being than Jesse Helms. And we have disagreed on policy matters over and over again--he is a passionate conservative, his voting record has scored a 100 percent rating from American Conservative Union throughout his 30 years here, and he is deeply proud of the fact that during those years he has one of the highest voting records of loyalty to the Republican Party, in excess of 95 percent. It is that passion which I admire. We don't have enough of it in politics today, in my view. And while I wish we had more of on it our side, I respect it when I see it in anyone. Jesse Helms certainly brings it to his public service. I will miss his service here. I will miss working with him. There were many occasions when we actually did find common ground, as we do so frequently here, on matters that don't achieve the high profile status as matters of disagreement do. He served his State of North Carolina well. He served and represented a point of view embraced by many. I will miss him on a personal level as a kind and thoughtful individual. Jackie and I wish he and Dot the very best in the years to come. Bob Torricelli Mr. President, Robert Torricelli is leaving the Senate. He made the decision this fall not to seek reelection in the midst of his election. A lot of attention has been focused on that decision, but for those us of who have known Bob Torricelli over his 20 years of public service-- 14 years in the House, 6 years in the Senate--Bob Torricelli is a lot more than an individual who decided to pull out of a race in New Jersey this year. He is a passionate fighter for things he believes and he has compiled a wonderful record of public service. I want the Record to reflect that Bob Torricelli was a fine Senator, a fine Member of Congress. He fought very hard on behalf of his constituents, fought very hard on the issues he cared deeply about. We had our disagreements over Cuban policy frequently. I always used to say, when Bob Torricelli came to the floor to take the other side, he was a formidable opponent. He was an excellent debater, one who embraced his views with a great deal of knowledge and a great deal of passion and feeling. He became active in Democratic Party politics at an early age. His passion for politics is something all of us came to appreciate in the Senate during his years. He was elected to the House at age 31 in 1982. He did a tremendous job there, serving on the House International Relations Committee, and rose to prominence as a House member, as a leading voice for advancing and expanding democracy and human rights worldwide. In 1996, he came to the Senate. His efforts on behalf of tax, employment, environmental, education, and health issues are things we are all well aware of. He has wonderful legislative skills and was a great battler on behalf of the Democratic Party. He led the Senate Democratic campaign committee during his first term in a cycle during which he raised a lot of money to support Democratic candidates across the country. It is a thankless job. But for those of us who stand for election or reelection, you have to have someone who will head up these committees and do so with a great deal of energy. Bob Torricelli certainly did that for a lot of people whose careers might have been terminated more briefly had it not been for his dedication to seeing to it that Democratic candidates would have a good chance to be heard. I would not want this session to end without expressing my gratitude to Bob Torricelli for his service in this body and his service to the people of New Jersey. Phil Gramm Mr. President, Phil Gramm is also leaving the Senate, going to work for UBS Warburg. Their offices are in Connecticut, so I will be looking forward, very carefully, at what Phil Gramm does as a new part-time constituent of mine. I say that somewhat facetiously of course. Phil Gramm has had a very distinguished career in public life. We have served together on the Banking Committee during his entire time in the Senate. We have worked together very closely on matters affecting the securities industry. We coauthored a number of bills together during our joint service. We were elected to the House together. Phil was a Democrat in those days, then became a Republican, was elected to the Senate as a Republican. He has authored major pieces of legislation during his career. In fact, the Brookings Institution listed three of the bills that Phil Gramm authored or coauthored as among a handful of the most significant pieces of legislation in the 20th century, including the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget proposal which attracted a wide degree of attention during the 1980s. He made a mark here as a tenacious fighter for what he believes in. One of the most difficult opponents you could have on an issue is Phil Gramm. He doesn't take many prisoners, and he fights very hard for the matters in which he believes. I thank him for his service and wish him well in the years ahead. Jean Carnahan Mr. President, I want to mention Jean Carnahan, who had a short service in this body. All of us have a deep appreciation for the circumstances under which she arrived--one of the most tragic set of circumstances any of us can imagine. She did a remarkable job, coming in under difficult circumstances, and we owe her a debt of gratitude for the courageous and selfless service that she provided to the people of Missouri, the American public, and the sense of silent grace with which she handled those personal difficulties. She didn't just simply show up in the Senate--she thrived here. All of our colleagues would agree when I say that learning to navigate the ways of the Senate can be difficult for anybody, but for somebody who never served in public office, having, of course, been the first lady of her State of Missouri for 8 years, Jean Carnahan did a remarkable job during her time here. She made a difference on numerous pieces of legislation in which she helped to forge compromises. While her tenure may have been brief, she left a mark worthy of those with much longer service. All of us express nothing but our very best wishes to Jean Carnahan and to her family in the coming years. She has become a good friend to us here. I thank her for her service, and I am sure she will find other ways to contribute and provide services for the people of this country. Frank Murkowski Frank Murkowski and I were elected to the Senate together in 1980. He has now been elected Governor to the State of Alaska. He is moving on to other areas of public service. He has done a very fine job here and has made a significant contribution representing the people of Alaska. He had a successful career as a businessman in Alaska before coming to the Senate. He was President of the Alaska National Bank from 1970 to 1980. Since his arrival here, he has kept Alaska first and foremost in his mind. He has been an extraordinary defender of Alaska's interests. But he made many contributions, as well, to the national agenda. In fact, many of his biggest fights have greatly benefitted our Nation as a whole. In 1996, for example, Frank Murkowski led the congressional effort to pass the omnibus parks bill, which created or improved more than 100 national parks, forests, preserves and historic sites nationwide, including two in Alaska. And, for more than 25 years, Frank and his wife, Nancy, have been leaders in the fight against breast cancer in rural Alaska, and other areas where access to early testing is severely lacking. He also led a national effort against breast cancer here in Washington, and has been an integral part of securing increased Federal funding for breast cancer research and treatment nationwide. He has been a passionate advocate of oil and gas exploration in Alaska--one of the major debates in this body. I disagreed with Frank Murkowski about allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but he certainly fought very hard on behalf of his beliefs, showing up with charts and graphs and pictures of wildlife and the like, day after day during that debate. The people of Alaska have now elected him as their Governor. I know all of us wish he and his wife Nancy well as they assume new responsibilities in Juneau, Alaska. Fred Thompson Mr. President, I pay tribute to and express my gratitude to Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, as well, for his service here. He has made a significant contribution to public life during his years here in the Senate, as well as prior to arriving here. Fred's career in politics has truly been one of life imitating art imitating life. How else can you describe a man who can be seen on the Senate floor debating, only to see him later that evening playing a district attorney on the television show ``Law and Order''? On just about any given Sunday, you can catch Fred Thompson on cable in a rerun of ``Die Hard II,'' or ``The Hunt for Red October.'' So he has had a distinguished career in film and television, also. But to suggest that was the sum total of Fred Thompson's life would be a tragic mistake. There is a lot more to it. He has made significant contributions in real life for over 30 years. He did serve as an assistant U.S. attorney at one point in his life. He has been a prominent public figure during some of the most critical moments in our Nation's history--not only as chairman of the Governmental Relations Committee, but also during the Watergate crisis in the early 1970s. Fred Thompson was just a few years out of Vanderbilt Law School when he was named minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973. He has been commended on many occasions for his role in the public disclosure of the Oval Office audio tapes, and that deserves mention here again today. Fred Thompson's early impact on the American political scene foreshadowed his later career and success in the Senate, and his ever- growing popularity in Tennessee. In 1994, he was elected by the people of that State to fill the seat left vacant by the election of Senator Al Gore as Vice-President. When he was voted in for a full Senate term in 1996, he received the highest number of votes cast for any candidate for any office in Tennessee history. Fred Thompson has compiled a distinguished career over the years, as I mentioned earlier, as an assistant U.S. attorney, as Watergate counsel and, of course, during his years in the Senate. We are going to miss him here. He and his wife Geri, I am sure, are going to have a bright future, and I have a feeling we will be hearing more about Fred Thompson in the years to come. Robert Smith Mr. President, Bob Smith from New Hampshire is also leaving the Senate. While, again, we have been on not only different sides of the aisle but on the different sides of many, if not most, issues that come before the Senate, I thank Bob Smith for his service to his State of New Hampshire and to the causes which he embraced very firmly. Bob Smith is a very conservative Member of this body. He has also become a leading advocate, during his latter years of service, on environmental questions affecting not only the State of New Hampshire, but also environmental issues across the country, including his work on helping to clean up and restore the Florida Everglades. He opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge despite strong support from the Bush administration and Senator Frank Murkowski. So Bob Smith was more diverse in his views than some might have otherwise believed. Again, I thank him for his service. We didn't agree on many substantive issues that came before this body, but he was a passionate fighter for views he held. My wife Jackie and I wish him and his wife Jo Ann all the best in the future. tim hutchinson Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Tim Hutchinson, who will be leaving the United States Senate at the conclusion of the 107th Congress. Although Senator Hutchinson and I have not agreed on every issue that has come before us, I have always considered him a friend, and I have always respected his convictions. He has certainly served as a capable and loyal advocate for the people of his home state of Arkansas. Mr. President, I had the good fortune of getting to know Tim Hutchinson very well during his six years in the Senate. We served together on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. And, in 2000, Senator Hutchinson and I co-founded the Senate Biotechnology Caucus, which has played an important role in educating Members of Congress and the public about recent developments in medical and genetic research. Throughout his 10 years in Washington--4 years in the House of Representatives and 6 here in the Senate--Tim Hutchinson has shown a deep commitment to improving the education of America's children, strengthening our national security, increasing access to healthcare, and safeguarding the often overlooked interests of rural America. Given his background, these priorities are not surprising. Tim Hutchinson himself was born on a small farm in rural Gravette, Arkansas. And he was educated as a minister at Bob Jones University in South Carolina. After graduating from college, he returned to Gravette, where he opened a Christian day school and taught history at nearby John Brown University. I have always believed that his background as an educator made Senator Hutchinson one of the most thoughtful and well-spoken members of this body. Tim Hutchinson's election to the Senate in 1996 was the culmination of a 10-year political evolution, which began with his election to the Arkansas Statehouse in 1985. While there, he gained a state-wide reputation as a tireless advocate of law enforcement. Tim Hutchinson was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1993, and in 1996 he became the first Republican in Arkansas history to win a popular election to the Senate. As a Senator Tim Hutchinson remained a committed advocate for conservative causes--consistently scoring over 90 percent for his voting record by the American Conservative Union. However, there were also several instances when Senator Hutchinson took the lead on important issues that crossed party lines. For example, he has always had an interest in improving public education in America, and was an integral part of the effort to create tax free education savings accounts. And, during the 107th Congress, Senator Hutchinson introduced the Nurse Employment and Education Development Act--a landmark piece of bi- partisan legislation to address the critical nursing shortage affecting rural Arkansas and the country as a whole. This year, the NEED Act was incorporated into the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which President Bush recently signed into law. This legislation stands as a fitting coda to Tim Hutchinson's tenure in the U.S. Senate--its positive impact will be felt across America for years to come. Mr. President, I will miss having Tim Hutchinson as a colleague. My wife Jackie and I wish him and his wife Randy, all the best in future year. I thank all 10 of these Members for their friendship. I look forward to seeing them in the years ahead, and I wish them and their families the very best in the years that come down the road.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am curious, if I could get the attention of the distinguished majority whip, what is the plan this morning, if I can inquire of how we are going to proceed?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2002, a bill which I believe will go a long way in restoring the trust that Americans place in the funeral and death care industries. None of us like to think about death and dying. It is a painful and uncomfortable subject, and most Americans, understandably, choose not to confront matters related to the death of a loved one until the death actually occurs. And when a loved one does pass on, we turn to our friends and family to grieve. Certainly, the last thing anyone wants to do at such a painful time is to spend hours or days negotiating or shopping for a funeral, casket, or other goods and services. Instead, we leave most of these arrangements in the hands of funeral service providers, turning to them to ensure that our loved ones are cared for and treated with respect and dignity after their passing. We place a great deal of trust in funeral service providers. A funeral, after all, represents one of the largest purchases many consumers will ever make, just behind a home, college education, and a car. However, unlike these transactions, the purchase of funeral services is most often done under intense emotional duress, with very little time to spare, and without the benefit of the type of consumer information generally available when making such a large purchase. As a result, we trust funeral service providers to give us fair prices, to represent goods and services accurately, and to not take advantage of us during our moments of greatest grief and vulnerability. For the most part, this trust is well deserved. I have no doubt, that the majority of individuals working in the funeral industry are good men and women who practice their profession with the honor and gravity it demands. However, recent revelations of abuses in the industry have shown us that not all members of the death care industry are honest and upstanding. We all remember hearing, earlier this year of the discovery of over 200 bodies strewn in the woods near a crematorium in Noble, GA. There is also recent evidence of desecration of graves and remains at cemeteries in Florida, California, Hawaii, and my own State of Connecticut. These incidents, as well as developments in the funeral industry as a whole, compel us to reexamine the regulatory structure we currently have in place for this industry. Currently, the death care industry is regulated by a patchwork of State and local laws. These regulations may have been sufficient years ago, but the character of the industry has changed substantially since many of these laws were passed. The industry has become surprisingly large and diverse. Today, the death care industry generates annual revenues of over $15 billion and employ over 104,000 Americans. The 1990s saw the rise of multi-state ``consolidators'' who purchased local funeral homes across the country. Even for small local firms, the business has become increasingly complex. As more and more Americans travel and live in places far from where they were born, the industry has become one that frequently does business across State and county lines. There have also been changes in Americans' cultural expectations of funeral services. For example, the percentage of cremations has risen from 5 percent in the 1970s to 25 percent today. However, only 12 States have substantive laws which cover cremation. In fact, in the case in Georgia I mentioned earlier, the crematorium in question was statutorily exempt from inspection, allowing the abuses to continue undiscovered. The only significant Federal regulation of the industry exists in the Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule, promulgated nearly 20 years ago. Again, this rule has not kept up with the nature of the industry. Perhaps most importantly, the rule does not cover numerous sectors of the industry such as cemeteries, crematories, and casket makers. It also does not effectively regulate prepaid funeral contracts, which have become an increasingly popular option in recent years. Earlier this year, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Children and Families in which we examined developments in the industry and how they have impacted American families. Since that hearing, I have worked with both consumer and industry groups to craft legislation to protect Americans from potential abuse by funeral service providers. The Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2002 would provide Federal funding to allow States to hire and train inspectors and give consumers the right to legal action against those who violate regulatory standards. In order to be eligible for funding, states would have to adhere to standards which are outlined in the legislation. The act would also codify and strengthen the existing FTC regulations governing licensing and registration, recordkeeping, inspection, resolution of consumer complaints, and enforcement of State laws in the industry. It would clarify regulations to prevent deceptive trade practices in the industry and ensure that consumers can make informed decisions as they make funeral arrangements. Finally, the FTC rules would be expanded to cover all segments of the death care industry. I am aware that as we are in the closing days of this Congress, the Senate will not have the opportunity to consider this legislation this year. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise this issue with colleagues today in the hope that we will be able to move on this issue when we reconvene for the 108th Congress. This legislation is bipartisan. A House companion bill is being sponsored by Representative Foley of Florida. He has been a leader in the effort to ensure that dignity and respect prevail in all aspects of death care services. I look forward to working with him and all of our colleagues in the 108th Congress to advance this same worthy objective.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2002, a bill which I believe will go a long way in restoring the trust that Americans place in the funeral and death care industries. None of us like to think about death and dying. It is a painful and uncomfortable subject, and most Americans, understandably, choose not to confront matters related to the death of a loved one until the death actually occurs. And when a loved one does pass on, we turn to our friends and family to grieve. Certainly, the last thing anyone wants to do at such a painful time is to spend hours or days negotiating or shopping for a funeral, casket, or other goods and services. Instead, we leave most of these arrangements in the hands of funeral service providers, turning to them to ensure that our loved ones are cared for and treated with respect and dignity after their passing. We place a great deal of trust in funeral service providers. A funeral, after all, represents one of the largest purchases many consumers will ever make, just behind a home, college education, and a car. However, unlike these transactions, the purchase of funeral services is most often done under intense emotional duress, with very little time to spare, and without the benefit of the type of consumer information generally available when making such a large purchase. As a result, we trust funeral service providers to give us fair prices, to represent goods and services accurately, and to not take advantage of us during our moments of greatest grief and vulnerability. For the most part, this trust is well deserved. I have no doubt, that the majority of individuals working in the funeral industry are good men and women who practice their profession with the honor and gravity it demands. However, recent revelations of abuses in the industry have shown us that not all members of the death care industry are honest and upstanding. We all remember hearing, earlier this year of the discovery of over 200 bodies strewn in the woods near a crematorium in Noble, GA. There is also recent evidence of desecration of graves and remains at cemeteries in Florida, California, Hawaii, and my own State of Connecticut. These incidents, as well as developments in the funeral industry as a whole, compel us to reexamine the regulatory structure we currently have in place for this industry. Currently, the death care industry is regulated by a patchwork of State and local laws. These regulations may have been sufficient years ago, but the character of the industry has changed substantially since many of these laws were passed. The industry has become surprisingly large and diverse. Today, the death care industry generates annual revenues of over $15 billion and employ over 104,000 Americans. The 1990s saw the rise of multi-state ``consolidators'' who purchased local funeral homes across the country. Even for small local firms, the business has become increasingly complex. As more and more Americans travel and live in places far from where they were born, the industry has become one that frequently does business across State and county lines. There have also been changes in Americans' cultural expectations of funeral services. For example, the percentage of cremations has risen from 5 percent in the 1970s to 25 percent today. However, only 12 States have substantive laws which cover cremation. In fact, in the case in Georgia I mentioned earlier, the crematorium in question was statutorily exempt from inspection, allowing the abuses to continue undiscovered. The only significant Federal regulation of the industry exists in the Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule, promulgated nearly 20 years ago. Again, this rule has not kept up with the nature of the industry. Perhaps most importantly, the rule does not cover numerous sectors of the industry such as cemeteries, crematories, and casket makers. It also does not effectively regulate prepaid funeral contracts, which have become an increasingly popular option in recent years. Earlier this year, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Children and Families in which we examined developments in the industry and how they have impacted American families. Since that hearing, I have worked with both consumer and industry groups to craft legislation to protect Americans from potential abuse by funeral service providers. The Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2002 would provide Federal funding to allow States to hire and train inspectors and give consumers the right to legal action against those who violate regulatory standards. In order to be eligible for funding, states would have to adhere to standards which are outlined in the legislation. The act would also codify and strengthen the existing FTC regulations governing licensing and registration, recordkeeping, inspection, resolution of consumer complaints, and enforcement of State laws in the industry. It would clarify regulations to prevent deceptive trade practices in the industry and ensure that consumers can make informed decisions as they make funeral arrangements. Finally, the FTC rules would be expanded to cover all segments of the death care industry. I am aware that as we are in the closing days of this Congress, the Senate will not have the opportunity to consider this legislation this year. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise this issue with colleagues today in the hope that we will be able to move on this issue when we reconvene for the 108th Congress. This legislation is bipartisan. A House companion bill is being sponsored by Representative Foley of Florida. He has been a leader in the effort to ensure that dignity and respect prevail in all aspects of death care services. I look forward to working with him and all of our colleagues in the 108th Congress to advance this same worthy objective.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee. I wanted to offer two amendments in one slot. I thought creatively of having one amendment en bloc, but that was not acceptable, so I made a choice on the two amendments, both of which are very important. I will explain both of them. The one pending deals with the firefighters and the tremendous need that exists to expand the workforce of first responders. I don't care which State you go to, when you talk of responding to terrorism, those called upon first to respond are State police, local police, firefighters, emergency medical service providers. That point hardly needs to be made. Those who watched the scenes of 9/11, know who were the first responders to the World Trade Center and the first responders to the Pentagon. It is ironic, as we consider this homeland security legislation, the provisions struck by the other body as they sent the bill over were the provisions for assistance to the local first responders in the case, God forbid, of a terrorist attack. I wanted to include an amendment to amend the Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to adjust the percentage differentials payable to Federal law enforcement officers in certain high-cost areas. The Presiding Officer is sensitive to this question, as we represent neighboring States. There, we are losing people from our Federal law enforcement agencies because of the pay differentials. It is impossible to meet the costs of living in certain areas of the country. I will make another effort before this bill is completed to see if we can consider that critically important amendment to the homeland security effort. For purposes of this debate, the only amendment that will be under consideration is the amendment dealing with firefighters. Both of these amendments fix glaring omissions in the pending substitute. The amendment I am offering on behalf of the firefighters provides Federal assistance to local fire departments to hire 75,000 new firefighters to address new homeland security needs. Senator John Warner, my friend and colleague from Virginia, and I recognized the problem of firefighter understaffing shortly after September 11 and we wrote legislation to help solve the problem. The amendment is based on the bill Senator Warner and I wrote. This amendment also builds on the FIRE Act, which Senator DeWine and I authored in 2000. With the support of Senators Warner and Levin the FIRE Act became law, and has provided some $400 million to tens of thousands of firefighters around the country. Today's amendment is also nearly identical to an amendment authored by Senator Carnahan, which was accepted by the Governmental Affairs Committee earlier this year. One aspect of being prepared is to have the men and women on the ground who can put out the fires and respond to the injuries and the tragedies that may occur. Just as we call upon the National Guard to meet the increased needs of more manpower in the military, we must make a national commitment to hire additional firefighters necessary to protect the American people on the homefront. The legislation we proposed would put 75,000 new firefighters on America's streets over 7 years. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has steadily declined. Today in the United States there is only one firefighter for every 280 citizens. We have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers, and we need to turn this around now more than ever. Understaffing is such a problem that according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, nearly two thirds of all fire departments cannot meet minimum safety standards. OSHA standards require that for every team of two firefighters in a burning structure, another team of two be stationed outside to assist men in the event of collapse. Sadly, too many men and women are lost because there is no second team outside the unstable buildings. We saw this in Worcester, Massachusetts a few years ago. I will not go down all of the provisions that emphasize the importance of having the additional personnel on the ground. I mentioned earlier we had a letter from the International Association of Fire Fighters, and that letter is printed in the Record, along with a letter from the International Association of Fire Chiefs. So this is a case where you have both labor and management making the same request as we consider this homeland security legislation. I do not want to belabor the point. I am struck by the fact we would drop provisions which have been almost universally supported in this Chamber even prior to 9/11, the need for additional personnel on the ground to provide assistance to local communities through grant applications. To give an idea of the pent-up need, when we originally authored the FIRE Act which was to provide grant moneys to local departments, the 33,000 around the country, paid, volunteer, or combination departments, there was $100 million put into the budget to provide grants to local communities. In excess of $3 billion in applications in the first year came to FEMA because of the pent-up need that exists across the country for additional equipment, and to provide additional personnel, additional training, so firefighters can respond. Most Americans today are aware, obviously, that the role of firefighters and EMS services are vastly different than even a few years ago. Today, firefighters are called upon to respond to situations where highly toxic chemical materials are involved. The degree of sophistication to be brought to the trade of firefighters is so much more complicated than before, as the demands have increased dramatically. When we speak of volunteer departments, for instance, we rely on the good will and the spirit of volunteerism. In many of our rural and local communities, people volunteer to serve. Yet today they are called upon to respond to very complicated and dangerous situations. There was an overwhelming degree of support when Senator Warner and Senator Levin took the bill that Senator DeWine, myself, and others fashioned and included as part of the Defense authorization bill. Then, of course, the appropriations were forthcoming and the demand was evident. After 9/11, the demand increased dramatically as a result of the new threats of terrorism. I am deeply troubled and saddened that we are talking about homeland security and yet there is nothing in this bill, nothing, that provides one red penny to hire first responders of terrorist attacks. How ludicrous is that? We are talking about a homeland security bill and we have nothing in here to go to local police, fire, and EMS services, and we will call this a homeland security bill. The great irony, as our colleague from New York pointed out, is there are provisions in this bill to protect the pharmaceutical industries from lawsuits where vaccines are developed for kids. How do you explain that to the American public? We sneak provisions in this bill to protect corporate America, yet we will not provide money to those who are called upon to respond, God forbid, if another terrorist attack occurs. How do you explain that to the American public? Under these procedures we are dealing with--and it gets confusing even for those who have been here a while with post cloture and other procedural roadblocks--I am probably not going to get a vote on this amendment dealing with the firefighters. I probably should not waste the time to bring it up, but people ought to know that while people go around and beat their chest about homeland security in this bill, you should not be deluded by the name. The name may sound pretty good, but underneath it are a lot of problems. There are things that are in this bill that have nothing to do with homeland security, and there are things that should be in here that are not. These firefighters need our help and support and backing. I regret I was not able to include the problem dealing with law enforcement, an amendment which has--I will not bother listing everyone here, I will include these names for the Record--a broad-based constituency here of some 30 Members of this Chamber who have supported this bill, S. 2770: Senator Baucus, Senator Biden, Senator Snowe, Senator DeWine, Senator Durbin, Senator Collins, Senator Corzine, Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, Senator Warner--the list goes on here, of our colleagues who have supported this law enforcement provision that I mentioned earlier about the great disparity in pay. We are losing these people. I am not allowed under the procedures to offer that amendment now. I will try to find a chance to do it in the next few days, at least to make an effort to have it as part of this bill. Again, I have a very strong letter from the law enforcement agents, asking for some assistance here. I don't know how you explain to people what we are doing in homeland security as law enforcement and firefighters here are basically going to be left out of this bill. I regret that is the case. I am faced now with this particular second-degree amendment, and we will see what happens over the next day or so and whether or not we can actually get a vote on it, but I wanted to take a few minutes to explain my concerns about it. Earlier this year, of course, we had adopted funding for the FIRE Act as a separate appropriation. It was not vetoed, but it was tantamount to a veto. It was what we call sequestered by the President. He took those moneys and basically said I am not going to sign this into law. So the grant money for communities in Rhode Island and New Jersey and Michigan--all across the country--who were looking for us to be a partner in getting better prepared to deal with the threats of terrorism, I am sorry to tell you, are not included in here. I don't know who you are including in homeland security, but you are not part of the deal. Apparently the pharmaceutical industry is, but we are not. We will try our best in the next few days to rectify this, but under the rules and procedures I don't think it is going to happen, I am sad to report. Maybe we can try in the next Congress. But I am saddened we are passing a homeland security bill and firefighters and law enforcement officials are not going to be a part of this effort, at least as far as these amendments are concerned. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will send to the desk an amendment in the second degree. This does not strike any provisions of the underlying amendment.

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

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily lay aside the pending amendment so I may offer two amendments en bloc.

Mr. DODD. My colleague is absolutely correct. In fact, one of the things we find--I am sure the Presiding Officer has had the same experience--are simple things such as interconnectivity so that firefighters can talk to police departments. One of the problems we discovered in New York, the State that our distinguished colleague so ably represents, in the wake of 9/11 in New York City, was that the firefighters could not speak to each other--incompatibility of systems. They have been asking for some Federal help so police departments could talk to fire departments, could talk to emergency medical services and get some help in doing so. That was one of the provisions we wanted. That has been included in this bill. It is incredible that we are faced with provisions in this bill to protect--and I say this as someone who represents many of them--the pharmaceutical companies that have objected to the idea of having to face a potential liability as a result of efforts to protect children from dreadful health problems. Yet the bill excludes language that would do exactly what the Senator from New York has described, and that is to see to it we have additional new firefighters on the ground. We have asked for it. Reading from a letter from the International Association of Fire Fighters, they state: On behalf of the 250,000 professional fire fighters who are members of the International Association of Fire Fighters, I want to express our deep gratitude-- And I apologize we are not going to be able to fulfill their sense of gratitude. for your leadership and effort in amending the homeland security bill to provide for fire fighter staffing. Your fire fighter staffing amendment expands upon the FIRE Act Grant program . . . And then it goes on to say: As fire fighters in New York and Washington demonstrated on September 11, fire fighters save lives and are the linchpin to an effective terrorism response. Fire fighter staffing must be part of the homeland security bill. It has been stricken. It is no longer a part of this bill at all. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association efforts are also not reflected in this bill now. They have been trying to get some help and support and that is not in here. I ask unanimous consent that the correspondence from the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association be printed in the Record so our colleagues can have the benefit of reading what these national and international organizations are calling for.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague from New York leaves the floor, I wish to join with her in this call for support of the striking amendment. I am going to try to offer a couple of amendments--I do not know what kind of success I am going to have--to put some provisions back into the homeland security legislation dealing with the professional firefighters, as well as some law enforcement officials. I have letters I will read into the Record shortly from the International Association of Firefighters and from Federal Law Enforcement Officers Associations urging in the strongest words possible that these amendments be included as part of the homeland security bill. The point my colleague from New York has made, the great irony she has pointed out is that we now have provisions in the bill that have nothing to do with homeland security. They are a backdoor effort to undermine legislation being developed in a bipartisan fashion. We had cooperation. We are now being told in this bill that we are going to undo efforts made dealing with children's safety and children's health and exclude the very provisions that are asked for by the first responders to homeland security threats--firefighters and law enforcement.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to honor a constituent of mine, Dr. Irving Guttenberg, on the occasion of his retirement. For 35 years, Dr. Guttenberg has specialized in ear, nose, and throat medicine in Meriden, CT. Over the course of his career, he treated and cured virtually thousands of neighbors in Meriden and surrounding communities, gradually earning the trust and admiration of an entire region. I had the pleasure of having Dr. Guttenberg's daughter, Lisa Guttenberg Weiss, on my Connecticut staff for many years. Last month, I was deeply touched by an affectionate letter Lisa wrote to the Meriden Record Journal describing her father's dedication to his patients and chosen profession. I would like that letter printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks. I know that the people of Meriden and central Connecticut will truly miss Dr. Guttenberg. Once again, I commend Dr. Guttenberg on the occasion of his retirement, and I wish him success in all of his future endeavors. The letter follows: An End of an Era for Dr. Guttenberg It is with a sense of pride and a few tears that I write to mark the end of an era and the retirement of Dr. Irving Guttenberg, my father. With my mother's help, he opened his medical office, now known as Ear, Nose and Throat Specialists, P.C. in 1967 at 219 West Main Street in Meriden. He officially retired September 30. I imagine he has treated at least half the people in town, not to mention Wallingford and Cheshire. I cannot even guess how many tonsils he has removed or strep throats and sinus infections he has treated. But, I know that he has performed well over 50,000 pressure-equalizing tubes procedures (because he told me so). I also know that he is greatly admired, if not beloved, by his patients. My knowledge comes from the school vacations I spent working in his offices when I would schedule patient appointments, often triple-booking his days because so many patients wanted to see ``Dr. G''. As a young girl and now as an adult in my late thirties, I have seen Dad's patients' come up to him at the movies, at restaurants, at the grocery store, everywhere to thank him for all his good work and kindness. People still come up to me and tell me how great and dedicated and smart my father is. I know and I agree. My father has always taken his responsibilities for his patients seriously. Even after he purchased his first pager and cell phone, it seemed like he would not leave the house if he were ``on call''. Forget about going to the movies. Do not even think about asking him to change his schedule to go away for some occasion. If he was on call, he was staying home, close to the phone and close to the hospital. When I was growing up, my father left early in the morning and returned home relatively late, often eating dinner well after the rest of the family had finished. During weekends Dad had early morning and late afternoon ``rounds'' at Meriden's two hospitals. Sometimes he brought my brother and me with him and we would wait for an eternity in the doctor's lounge or near the nurses' station. (We are rumored to have been wheelchair racers, but there is no proof.) Other times, when we awoke Mom told us that Dad went to the hospital in the middle of the night to operate on someone. Now, after 35 years in practice and after having served as Chief of Surgery and Chief of Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) at WWII Veterans' Memorial Hospital and Chief of ENT at MidState Medical Center and as a clinical instructor at Yale School of Medicine, my father is retiring. I do not know what he will do next. He told me he would sleep for a week and then baby- sit for my kids. I think there is some talk about travel too. Was that Dad or was that Mom? Whatever they do, I hope they both enjoy Dad's retirement. It is well deserved. Best wishes from me and everyone who knows and appreciates you. Your daughter, Lisa Guttenberg Weiss.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, first let me express my thanks to our colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, and express our sympathies to him and through him to the people of Minnesota and to the Wellstone family, the extended family, for all that they are suffering in this particular time, and to express my gratitude as well to my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, and my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for their very moving and emotional remarks. I think they captured to a large extent the sentiments of all of us. This is a difficult time. I suppose the American people see we are in session and wonder why only a few of us are here. Obviously, with a week to go before the congressional elections, not many are here in Washington. But suffice it to say, were 96 or 97 other Senators here today, you would here much the same sentiments that have been expressed already by the now-senior Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from California, and the Senator from Vermont. So I join my colleagues, and all Americans, in mourning the very tragic and sudden loss of our dear friend and colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, who will be forever remembered as a friend and patriot and true public servant, who fought each and every day of his public life-- in fact, of his life--to the improve the lives of average Americans. We got to know him here over the last 10 or 11 years as a Member of the U.S. Senate, but the people of Minnesota and the people of Carleton College, students who had him as a professor, people who knew him beforehand, they knew that Paul Wellstone didn't just become a fighter when he arrived in the Senate of the United States. He dedicated his life to it. It is what his parents taught him. It is what he believed in passionately as an American. We became witnesses to that sense of passion and outrage about wrongs in this country and around the world as we served with our colleague, Paul Wellstone, for the last decade. So, like my colleagues, I was stunned and deeply saddened by the enormous scope and tragedy of this loss. Obviously, the entire Wellstone family has suffered an unfathomable loss, as have the families of other victims of this horrendous accident. His wife Sheila--I join my colleagues in expressing our deep sense of loss. Sometimes, although we get to know Members, we don't get to know the spouses of our colleagues very well, but Sheila Wellstone really became a member of the Senate family aside from being a spouse. She was an unpaid volunteer in her husband's office. If there are women today who are suffering less because of domestic violence--and they are many who are not, but many who are--you can thank some colleagues here. But I suspect one of the reasons they became so motivated about the issue was because there was a person by the name of Sheila Wellstone who arrived here a decade ago and wanted to make this a matter of the business of the U.S. Senate. So they became partners, not just over the almost 40 years of love and affection for each other, but partners in their sense of idealism, sense of values, and sense of purpose. Marcia I did not know very well but certainly heard Paul and Sheila talk abut her with great admiration and affection. In the loss suffered by her family, with young children, it is just difficult to even come up with the words to express the sense of grief that I feel for her and her family. And obviously the staff: Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, and Mary McEvoy, along with the pilots who have been mentioned already: Richard Conry and Michael Guess, we didn't know, but I suspect on that flight up there they had gotten to know the Wellstone family and the staff. And so we want to express our deep sense of loss to their families. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of my remarks a wonderful editorial by David Rosenbaum in the New York Times on Saturday which I thought captured perfectly the image of Paul Wellstone, who he was and what he tried to do, better than any words I could possibly express here today.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to signal the passage of important legislation designed to combat the devastating illness of Lyme disease. The objective of this bipartisan consensus legislation is simple--to put us on the path toward eradicating Lyme disease--a disease still unfamiliar to some Americans, but one that is all too familiar to those of us from Connecticut and the Northeast. The impact that Lyme disease can have on its victims is tremendous. The disease first achieved prominence in the 1980s in the state of Connecticut and got its name from the town of Lyme, CT. Today, Connecticut residents have the dubious distinction of being 10 times more likely to contract Lyme disease than the rest of the nation. However, Mr. President, the incidence of Lyme disease nationwide is on the rise. In fact, cases of Lyme disease have been reported by 49 states and the District of Columbia. Since 1982, the number of Lyme disease cases reported to health officials numbers more than 145,000. However, reports indicate that the actual incidence of the disease may be many times greater than current figures suggest. Health problems experienced by those infected with Lyme disease can include facial paralysis, joint swelling, loss of coordination, irregular heartbeat, liver malfunction, depression, and memory loss. Because Lyme disease frequently mimics other conditions, patients often must visit multiple doctors before a proper diagnosis is made. This can result in prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, costly and futile treatments, and devastating emotional consequences for victims of Lyme disease and their families. The legislation that we pass today is a continuation of earlier efforts to stem the growth of Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. Through an amendment that I offered to the FY 1999 Department of Defense appropriations bill, an additional $3 million was directed toward the DoD's Lyme disease research efforts. This signaled an important first step in the fight to increase our understanding of this disease, but clearly more remains to be done. The legislation we pass today further continues these efforts. Central to this legislation, is the creation of a federal advisory committee on Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. This advisory committee will bring together members of the scientific community, health care providers, and, most important, those most personally touched by this devastating disease, Lyme patients and their families themselves. It is my hope that the important work of this, the first federal advisory committee on Lyme disease, will lay out a concise and workable federal blueprint for combating this debilitating illness. Additionally, this legislation will establish clear goals for federal action designed to conquer Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. In laying out these goals, the legislation offers a framework for the federal government that includes research, treatment, and prevention efforts designed to stop the growth of Lyme disease and other tick- borne disorders. The legislation passed by the United States Senate today also authorizes $10 million for federal activities related to the prevention and effective treatment of Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. This critically important funding will also provide needed research funding for vector-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease. I wish to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum, the legislation's chief Republican cosponsor, for his steadfast support of this initiative. It is due to his support, the support of my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee, and the support of the Lyme disease community that we are here today on the verge of significantly strengthening the federal commitment to eradicating Lyme disease. I pledge to continue to work with my colleagues to ensure vigorous and effective oversight of the legislation's implementation in order to ensure that our intent is fully realized. I think I can speak for all of my colleagues when I say that we look forward to the day when Lyme disease no longer causes so many to suffer. This legislation offers an important and critical step toward that laudable goal.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to applaud my colleagues in both the House and the Senate, particularly Congressman Billy Tauzin, Congressman John Dingell, Senator Judd Gregg, and Senator Ted Kennedy, for reaching a compromise on this important legislation. I know that there were several difficult issues to be negotiated, and I am pleased that we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement before the end of this Congress. I support this legislation because, first and foremost, it could increase the quality of patient care. At the same time, it will also prove beneficial to the manufacturers who make these devices, and the hospitals and health care providers that use them. By creating a system of user fees for FDA approval of medical devices, we are ensuring that life-improving and life-saving technologies will be available on the market in a more efficient and timely manner. Put more simply, this bill could save lives. In creating a user fee structure, we are expanding a model that has already proven dramatically successful in the prescription drug market. This bill will also have a positive impact on patient safety by expanding FDA regulation of the medical device reprocessing industry. Device reprocessing can certainly be beneficial when used appropriately. There are environmental benefits, as well as cost savings for hospitals. However, we must ensure that patient safety is not sacrificed. This legislation will do that by providing us with a better understanding of the impact that reprocessing has on the safety and efficacy of devices, and allowing the FDA to prevent the reprocessing of devices when safety is in question. Again, I thank my colleagues for working so diligently to come to this agreement, and I proudly support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Edwards and DeWine, the Youth Service Scholarship Act. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 to students who perform at least 300 hours of community service in each of two years of high school and continuing scholarships to students who continue their service in college. I believe that education is the hub of the wheel of our democracy. There is no better way to address any and all of the challenges we face as a nation than by providing all of our children with the education they need and deserve. In the 21st Century, higher education is not a luxury, it is a necessity, and this Act would extend access to higher education to more low-income students who otherwise might have difficulty attending college. Naturally, education means reading and math and history and science, but it also means learning to be a citizen. It's not easy to be a good citizen, and this Act will encourage our young people to engage in community service and reward them for that, and in so doing, will help ensure that our next generation of leaders understands that being an American is not just a privilege, but a responsibility. We know that students who participate in community service and youth development are less likely to use drugs and alcohol and to misbehave in school, and are more likely to receive good grades and be interested in going to college. We also know that Federal resources can be an effective incentive to leverage broader community support. So, I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Edwards and DeWine, in supporting the Youth Service Scholarship Act so that we can achieve more of those and other positive outcomes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins to introduce the Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act of 2002, to improve the recovery of missing children and the tracking of convicted sexual offenders and child predators. Sexual offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers. They create unparalleled fear among citizens, and most of their victims are children and youth. Two-thirds of imprisoned sex offenders report that their victims were under age 18, and nearly half report that their victims are ages 12 and younger. Last year, several newspapers across the country, including the Hartford Courant, highlighted the inadequacy of reporting information in missing child cases and the lack of tracking of convicted sex offenders and known child predators. One tragic example reported a convicted sex offender who moved from Massachusetts to Montana, where police were never contacted about his history. He brutally murdered several Montana children before he was apprehended, and was later linked to 54 cases of child abduction and molestation in several States. In many cases, convicted sex offenders and child predators slip through law enforcement loopholes and continue to prey on children. Over the last decade, Congress enacted several laws designed to improve the tracking of convicted sex offenders and improve the recovery of missing children, including The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994; Megan's Law of 1996; and The Pam Lyncher Sex Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996. Collectively, these acts established minimum standards for State sex offender registration programs and created systems to track convicted sex offenders. While these current Federal laws address the main features of an effective registry system, the discretion over registry details and procedures is left up to the States. This has led to a lack of consistency and wide disparities between States. For example, State requirements for sex offender notification of registration changes range from 1 day to 40 days, and State requirements for a sex offender to register an address after moving to a new State range from 48 hours to 70 days. In addition, many States place the burden to notify changes in registry information solely on the sex offender. We need to tighten registry systems so that law enforcement in all States is better equipped to track sexual offenders. This bill strengthens the registry foundation for all States built upon the practices already in place in some States. It builds on successful practices to better protect our communities nationwide. The tracking of released sex offenders is critical to protecting our children. Most sex offenders are not in prison, about 60 percent of convicted sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community, and those who are in prison often serve limited sentences. This is of great concern because sex offenders, particularly if untreated, are at risk of re-offending. This bill makes several important changes to improve the tracking of sex offenders and the recovery of missing children. The bill: amends the definition of ``minimally sufficient program'' to include: the registration of all convicted sex offenders prior to release; the collection of information to assist in tracking individuals, including a DNA sample, current photograph, driver's license and vehicle information; and verification of address and employment information for all offenders every 90 days; amends penalties for non-compliance with registry requirements. It provides that State programs must designate non-compliance as a felony and permits the issuance of a warrant. This provision is intended to encourage compliance by offenders as well as provide a tool for prosecutors; improves the chances for recovering missing children and aides law enforcement in solving cases by preventing the removal of missing children from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database and making sure that convicted sex offenders do not become exempt from the lifetime registration requirement; improves the chances for recovery of missing children by requiring entry of child information into the NCIC database within 2 hours. We must make the tracking of convicted sex offenders and the post- release supervision of child sexual predators a higher priority. It is not enough to ensure that an offender completes his sentence. Since most sexual offenders are in the community, we must ensure that there is continuing contact and supervision of released sexual offenders. We have an obligation to protect our children from sexual offenders and sexual predators who prey on our children. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Edwards and DeWine, the Youth Service Scholarship Act. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 to students who perform at least 300 hours of community service in each of two years of high school and continuing scholarships to students who continue their service in college. I believe that education is the hub of the wheel of our democracy. There is no better way to address any and all of the challenges we face as a nation than by providing all of our children with the education they need and deserve. In the 21st Century, higher education is not a luxury, it is a necessity, and this Act would extend access to higher education to more low-income students who otherwise might have difficulty attending college. Naturally, education means reading and math and history and science, but it also means learning to be a citizen. It's not easy to be a good citizen, and this Act will encourage our young people to engage in community service and reward them for that, and in so doing, will help ensure that our next generation of leaders understands that being an American is not just a privilege, but a responsibility. We know that students who participate in community service and youth development are less likely to use drugs and alcohol and to misbehave in school, and are more likely to receive good grades and be interested in going to college. We also know that Federal resources can be an effective incentive to leverage broader community support. So, I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Edwards and DeWine, in supporting the Youth Service Scholarship Act so that we can achieve more of those and other positive outcomes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins to introduce the Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act of 2002, to improve the recovery of missing children and the tracking of convicted sexual offenders and child predators. Sexual offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers. They create unparalleled fear among citizens, and most of their victims are children and youth. Two-thirds of imprisoned sex offenders report that their victims were under age 18, and nearly half report that their victims are ages 12 and younger. Last year, several newspapers across the country, including the Hartford Courant, highlighted the inadequacy of reporting information in missing child cases and the lack of tracking of convicted sex offenders and known child predators. One tragic example reported a convicted sex offender who moved from Massachusetts to Montana, where police were never contacted about his history. He brutally murdered several Montana children before he was apprehended, and was later linked to 54 cases of child abduction and molestation in several States. In many cases, convicted sex offenders and child predators slip through law enforcement loopholes and continue to prey on children. Over the last decade, Congress enacted several laws designed to improve the tracking of convicted sex offenders and improve the recovery of missing children, including The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994; Megan's Law of 1996; and The Pam Lyncher Sex Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996. Collectively, these acts established minimum standards for State sex offender registration programs and created systems to track convicted sex offenders. While these current Federal laws address the main features of an effective registry system, the discretion over registry details and procedures is left up to the States. This has led to a lack of consistency and wide disparities between States. For example, State requirements for sex offender notification of registration changes range from 1 day to 40 days, and State requirements for a sex offender to register an address after moving to a new State range from 48 hours to 70 days. In addition, many States place the burden to notify changes in registry information solely on the sex offender. We need to tighten registry systems so that law enforcement in all States is better equipped to track sexual offenders. This bill strengthens the registry foundation for all States built upon the practices already in place in some States. It builds on successful practices to better protect our communities nationwide. The tracking of released sex offenders is critical to protecting our children. Most sex offenders are not in prison, about 60 percent of convicted sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community, and those who are in prison often serve limited sentences. This is of great concern because sex offenders, particularly if untreated, are at risk of re-offending. This bill makes several important changes to improve the tracking of sex offenders and the recovery of missing children. The bill: amends the definition of ``minimally sufficient program'' to include: the registration of all convicted sex offenders prior to release; the collection of information to assist in tracking individuals, including a DNA sample, current photograph, driver's license and vehicle information; and verification of address and employment information for all offenders every 90 days; amends penalties for non-compliance with registry requirements. It provides that State programs must designate non-compliance as a felony and permits the issuance of a warrant. This provision is intended to encourage compliance by offenders as well as provide a tool for prosecutors; improves the chances for recovering missing children and aides law enforcement in solving cases by preventing the removal of missing children from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database and making sure that convicted sex offenders do not become exempt from the lifetime registration requirement; improves the chances for recovery of missing children by requiring entry of child information into the NCIC database within 2 hours. We must make the tracking of convicted sex offenders and the post- release supervision of child sexual predators a higher priority. It is not enough to ensure that an offender completes his sentence. Since most sexual offenders are in the community, we must ensure that there is continuing contact and supervision of released sexual offenders. We have an obligation to protect our children from sexual offenders and sexual predators who prey on our children. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my satisfaction with last night's passage by unanimous consent of S. 2667, the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act. I would like to thank Gaddi Vasquez and the staff of the Peace Corps for their willingness to work with me to come up with a bill that I believe will make it possible for the President to achieve the goal that he set during the State of the Union address in January, namely the doubling of the size of the Peace Corps over the next several years. I am proud of the bill we have passed, and I am confident that the provisions it contains will help us continue to fulfill President Kennedy's original vision of the Peace Corps as an American volunteer service dedicated to ``promoting world peace and friendship.'' It is always with tremendous fondness and pride that I speak of the Peace Corps, as it gives me occasion to recall my own years as a volunteer in the Dominican Republic. I have often spoken of how these 2 years changed my life. Indeed, 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. As remarkable as the success of the Peace Corps has been, and as important a symbol and example it is of public service, in the aftermath of the tragic attacks on America on September 11, it has become something more. It has become a necessity. The terrorist attacks of last year have shown us that the world has become a much smaller place. The United States can no longer afford to neglect certain countries, or certain parts of the world. We need to find ways to help developing countries meet their basic needs, and we need to do so now. We especially need to act in places where the citizens are particularly unfamiliar with American values. Now, more than ever, Peace Corps volunteers play a pivotal role in helping us achieve a greater understanding of America abroad, especially in predominantly Muslim countries. However, if we are to expand the aims of the Peace Corps, to broaden its scope, and to send our volunteers into more countries, then we must provide the Peace Corps with a new charter and adequate resources to safely and effectively pursue these objectives. I believe that the legislation that passed the Senate last night, the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act, will go a long way to meeting anticipated funding needs, as well as charting the future course for this valuable organization. I believe that the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act will do an excellent job of modifying the Peace Corps Act to better meet the needs of both our volunteers and an expanding and changing organization. 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. Our volunteers are to be commended again for their enduring commitment to these ideals, and for the way they are able to communicate the message of the Peace Corps throughout the world. They deserve the very best from us, and the passage of the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act is an important step toward fulfilling our responsibility to the Peace Corps and its volunteers.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for those very gracious comments. I thank him for his efforts, as well as the very fine staff people, on both the terrorism insurance issue, which is an important question in his State, and the election reform bill. I think we have finally come to realize--maybe it takes some of us longer than others--that any product that is going to have much merit requires that it be one reached on a bipartisan basis. The very fact that this institution is divided about as equally as it can be demands that. I have served in this Chamber in the minority by a significant number of seats, and I have served in the majority by a significant number of seats. I have served in this Chamber, obviously, as we all do today, when we have been evenly divided. Under any set of circumstances short of an overwhelming number, measures need to be worked out with each other. We have to sit down and resolve differences across party lines. The Senator from Nevada is a master at it. He was generous in his comments about the Senator from Connecticut. All of us admire the patience, the diligence, and the tenacity of Senator Reid. There is no one who fights harder and spends more time every day to try to make things happen. There is no more frustrating job. I found that out working on these last two issues, and that was frustrating enough. I am tired. I have been up several nights into the wee hours of the morning. I have talked about that 1-year-old daughter of mine. I have been accused of trying to avoid some of the paternal responsibilities that come with a new child by legislating too late at night. That is hardly the case. I cannot wait to get home to her. I have admiration for Senator Reid, who does it every day, but for those who do this on occasion, it is very hard. To do it every single day we are here takes a special talent and ability and commitment to this country. No one embraces those qualities better than the senior Senator from Nevada. I thank the Senator for the kind words about the Senator from Connecticut. But they can be said with greater emphasis about the Senator from Nevada. I am sorry we cannot urge the adoption of a conference report on terrorism insurance. We will do that shortly sometime within the next few weeks. I am confident that before the Congress ends, enough Members, as they have already indicated in this Chamber, will be willing to sign a conference report, and hopefully the other Chamber will do the same. Again, my compliments to the leadership of the other body and the leadership here for insisting we work to try to get this done. It is never an easy job. You have to try to work things out. I thank the President of the United States, as well, and his very kind staff. They worked very hard to keep us at this. When a number of us became discouraged on whether it was worthwhile spending anymore time, people at the White House, legislative staff kept saying: let's stick with it and see if we cannot come up with some answers. I admire that tenacity and that commitment. I look forward to the final passage of this bill. It will happen, without any doubt. It is just a matter of time. I thank those involved in the process.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we are in the closing hours of this session--I am told there is some discussion about coming back after the election--we have not yet reached a final agreement on the terrorism insurance bill in the sense that there are conference reports that are being read. Obviously, Members from this Chamber and the other Chamber have departed for their respective districts and States. So despite the long hours last night, the early hours of this morning and today to achieve the final signing of a conference report, that particular effort has not been achieved yet. It is appropriate and proper to suggest to those who are interested in the subject matter that we are on the brink of a very good and strong agreement dealing with terrorism insurance. Obviously, it is not finished until the conferees of the Senate and the other body sign the conference report, both bodies then vote on a conference report, and the President signs it. So there are several steps to go after people who have worked on a product and submit it to all of our colleagues, particularly those who are on the conference, for their approval. I am heartened and confident that when Members look at the agreement, they will be satisfied we did a good job. I will quickly point out that like any agreement involving 535 different people, not including the President of the United States, where there are divided institutions, as they are in the Senate and the other body, getting an agreement that one side or the other would find entirely favorable is very unrealistic. I went through a process with my good friend now from the State of Ohio, Bob Ney, on election reform. We have spent a lot of days, a lot of nights and weekends working out that bill. There are those in this Chamber and the other Chamber who are not satisfied with everything we did--I understand why--but we never would have achieved a bill had it been a bill to the total satisfaction of one side or the other. I will say the same is going to be true about terrorism insurance. I commend Mike Oxley, the chairman of the House Banking Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, and others who have worked on this legislation. I commend the White House and the Treasury Department. I thank my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, who is the chairman of the Banking Committee and chairman of the conference on terrorism insurance, Senator Schumer, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Gramm, Senator Shelby, and Senator Enzi, all of whom have been conferees on the Senate side. Certainly, their staffs have labored. I thank the majority leader's office and the minority leader's office. A lot of people have worked on this bill. If I were asked whether this is the bill I would write if I could write it alone, I would say no. I am sure Chairman Oxley would say the same thing. Were it his opportunity to write a bill perfectly, he would write something different than what we wrote. But we believe it is the best we could do under these circumstances. The terrorism insurance bill is about policyholders. It is about jobs. It is about an economic condition of a country that is faltering. While this proposal is not going to solve all of those problems when there are a lot of people out of work, a lot of construction projects that have stopped, a lot of fine businesses and industries that cannot get insurance and thus cannot borrow money, then that contributes to an economic difficulty in the country which we are witnessing. We have worked a long time to arrive at a product we think can be constructive, one that the President could sign, and one that Members could support. Obviously, I do not know all of the situations in the other body, but I can say that in this Senate we are going to make a real effort to send this conference report around and give Members a chance to read it. Frankly, we wanted to have that done before the close of business today, but when we were up until about 4 or 4:30 this morning, began again at 9:30 this morning, and did not finish the final product until late this afternoon, it is unrealistic to assume everyone could have read this, gone over it carefully, and signed off on it. I regret we were unable to get that done, but I believe before the final gavel comes down on this session, whenever that is, the Congress of the United States will have a chance to express its approval of this effort. I wish I could stand here and say that this is done. It is not, because we need those signatures on this conference report. But I can say that those who have been involved in trying to craft it believe we have put together a good agreement.