Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am very pleased this afternoon to bring to the attention of the Senate the conference report agreement on legislation to reform our Nation's election laws. I anticipate we will not need the full time allocated. I would like to think Members are so interested they would like to come over and share their thoughts with us on this subject. But knowing there are no votes today, that is not likely to occur so we will probably use a lot less time than the 2 hours required. I note the presence of my friend and colleague, Senator McConnell, the ranking member of the Rules Committee. Before getting to the substance of my remarks, let me begin by thanking him and his staff, and the staff of Senator Bond as well, one of our conferees, and that of my own two conferees on the Democratic side, Senators Durbin and Schumer, and their staffs, not to mention my own staff, Kennie Gill and others, for the tremendous work done on the Senate side of this effort. It is somewhat ironic. I understand we are going to get this done. It is a quiet afternoon after Columbus Day. Members are still back in their States having spent the weekend with their families before returning tomorrow when we will have some additional votes as we begin to wind up this 107th Congress. It is somewhat ironic in a sense that we are in this sort of quiet stillness of this Chamber with only two of us here to talk, when you consider what gave rise to this legislation-- the fact that there was one of the most tumultuous elections in the history of our country that galvanized the attention, not only of the people of this country but those throughout the world. For more than a month, every single news program, day in and day out, 24 hours a day, was of eyes peering through hanging chads and people bellowing at each other in a voting precinct in Florida, with courtrooms packed, around the corner from here, in the United States Supreme Court. The irony is all of that turmoil provoked us to step up and find out whether our election laws could do with some changing--not that it all occurred in Florida or in just the 2000 election--but today, as we approach the second anniversary of that election, we find ourselves in a quiet Chamber with a couple of Members talking about something that both of us believe is a rather historic piece of legislation. When you consider that unlike other matters that come before this body, despite the fact that our colleagues may claim expertise in every subject matter that comes before them, this is truly one in which each Member who serves here is an expert because they would not have arrived here had they not been elected. To that extent, we have an appreciation of elections beyond the awareness of the average citizen in this country. So the fact that we--as Democrats and Republicans, in a time when people question whether or not we can come to terms about some of the major issues of the day, can take a subject matter so rife with partisanship as an election, with all of the scars, the wounds, the admonitions, the rhetoric, the demagoguery, use whatever words you want--were able in this Congress to craft legislation that passed the other body by a substantial margin, and passed this body 99 to 1, and then the conference report passed the House by a vote of 357-48, and we hope a substantial vote will occur here as well, is a tribute to the membership of this body, to the leadership of this body, and the other body as well--that we were able to get this done. If I may say so, I have been here 21 years. I have had proud moments when I have been involved in other legislative efforts. None exceeds the sense of pride I have over this particular accomplishment. Again, no one can ever claim that they were responsible in a legislative process for the final result. A lot of people can take legitimate credit for helping us achieve what we are asking our colleagues to support tomorrow when we vote before noon. This agreement, as it said, represents many mouths of effort. That effort took place amid a steady stream of news reports that predicted the demise of election reform. While those reports bewailed the lack of progress in conference negotiations, they overlooked the fact that, instead of a lack of progress, conferees were making progress. Working quietly during early mornings, late nights, and long weekends, we crafted the conference agreement that is before the Senate this afternoon. It is a bipartisan and bicameral agreement. It is one that, I believe, merits the support of our colleges in the Senate. It is one that has already been approved by the other body by a vote of 357 to 48. And it is one that the Administration has said the President is prepared to sign. Twenty-three months ago, our Nation was thrown into turmoil because we learned a painful reality: that our democracy does not work as well as we thought it did, or as it should. More than 100 million citizens went to the polls on election day 2000--November 7. Four to six million of them--for a variety of reasons--never had their votes counted. Some were thwarted by faulty machinery. Some were victims of wrongful and illegal purges from voter lists. Others fell victim to poorly designed ballots. But all of them--all--were denied the right to effectively exercise their most fundamental right as American citizens: the right to vote. Regardless of which candidate one supported, there is no disagreement that election day 2000 was not a proud day for our democracy. It was a day of deep embarrassment for a nation rightly viewed by the rest of the world as a beacon light of self-government. But that day was also, in a very real sense, a gift. Had there never been a contested election like the election of 2000, the problems plaguing our Nation's elections would likely never have been addressed. So it was in a sense a gift. If you were to find a silver lining in what occurred that day, what we are producing and asking our colleagues to support may be it. The legislation we present to the Senate today goes a long way toward fixing those problems and righting those wrongs. It does justice to the American voter. It breaks new ground. It is, I believe, the first civil rights legislation of the 21st century. It is not a perfect bill. But it will make our democracy work better and be stronger. Two hundred and thirteen years ago at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the Framers decreed that the administration of federal elections is not the job of just the States, or just the Federal Government, but the job of both. Until now, that vision of cooperation and partnership has largely been honored in the breach. The Federal Government has for the most part been an observer, not a partner, in the conduct of elections for Federal office. Starting now, with this legislation, that pattern comes to an end. For the first time--if you exclude the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in which the Federal Government told States what not to do--they must not levy poll taxes, must not set literacy tests--the National Government steps up to more fully meet its constitutional duty to uphold the soundness and sancity of the ballot. This is the first time the Federal Government is saying what we must do together to make our elections stronger. With this bill, we move closer to the day when every vote cast will be a vote counted. Our bill achieves this progress in three ways: with new rights, new responsibilities, and new resources. First, new rights. The conference agreement establishes new voting rights for our citizens. These include: The right--starting in 2004--to cast a provisional ballot. With this right, no qualified voter can ever again be turned away from the polling place without being able to cast at least a provisional ballot. There are some States that are doing this already and have been for years. Many do not. The right to check and correct one's ballot if the voter made a mistake. I know this is a radical idea. In this way, voters need never again leave a polling place haunted by the thought that they voted for the wrong candidate, or nullified their own vote by over-voting. The right of all voters to cast a private and independent ballot. Today, millions of disabled Americans face two options on election day, both of them bad: they either vote with the assistance of a stranger, or they do not vote at all. In the 2000 elections alone, some 20 million of them took the second option--because the barriers to the ballot box were just too daunting. With this legislation, henceforth--beginning in the year 2006--those days will come to an end. Starting with this bill, a disabled voter will have the same right to cast a private and independent ballot as any other voter. That provision dealing with providing for accessibility improvements in voting systems may not be required to go into effect until 2006. Obviously, some States may do that before. There is something in this bill that says you cannot do that. But at the very least, by the year 2006. The bill also creates the right to have, at each polling place, printed, posted information, including a sample ballot and a listing of voter rights and responsibilities. In this way, our bill will sharply reduce the risk of confusion and error on election day. In addition, our bill requires states to develop ``uniform and nondiscriminatory'' standards for counting ballots--because whether or not your ballot will count should never depend on the county or precinct where you happen to live and the economic circumstances there. Second, our bill establishes new responsibilities--for voters, for States, and for the Federal Government. To address concerns about fraud, voters seeking to vote for the first time in a state will be responsible for producing some form of identification. Senator Bond was particularly instrumental in crafting these provisions. We thank him. States will be responsible for producing statewide computerized lists of registered voters. Once these lists are up and running, it is our hope and expectation that the risk that individuals may be voting multiple times in multiple jurisdictions will be minimized if not eliminated altogether. Let me add, by the way, that when it comes to the computerized statewide lists, a voter may not have to register again. If you live in a State that provides for state-wide registration, or wants to provide for state-wide registration, this requirement will facilitate that so that if you move around in that State from one county to another, or from one community to the next, a statewide voter registration list means you don't have to register again. If you move from one community and one precinct to the other, with the statewide list, you register once. If you stay in that State, you may be registered forever in that State regardless of where you may live or move to under state-wide registration. That is not an insignificant burden we are lifting for many people in this country who move. If they are renters who can't afford homes and who want to participate in the process, every time they move from one precinct to the next, they have to register to vote. That will be over with, under state law providing for state-wide registration once provisions on the statewide voter registration requirements of this bill become effective. To ensure that the requirements of the bill are met, States will also be required to establish meaningful enforcement procedures to remedy voters' grievances. And at the federal level, the Department of Justice will be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the act. Third, this legislation would commit unprecedented new resources to improving and upgrading all aspects of our elections. It authorizes some $3.9 billion over the next three years to help states replace and renovate voting equipment, train poll workers, educate voters, upgrade voter lists, and make polling places more accessible for the disabled. I thought it worthwhile to note that since the elections of 2000, only three States--maybe a couple more--have made any effort at all to reform and update their election laws and requirements that voters use in the various States. It is always costly to do this. Frankly, as the Presiding Officer, a former Governor, can attest, when there are budget constraints and a lot of demands are being made, there has not been a great constituency out there advocating spending money to buy new voting equipment, or new voting machinery, or to train poll workers. There are many other demands on a State budget that have much larger constituencies than those who might say we ought to improve the voting systems of the country. The fact of matter is, despite a public outcry about all of this, there has been very little action over the years-- even in the wake of the 2000 elections. So it seems clear to us that if we are truly going to command States, in a number of provisions, to do things differently, to suggest that they do so without providing the resources would be yet once again an unfunded mandate. We know how States feel about Federal requirements when there are not resources to support meeting those requirements. This legislation provides $3.9 billion--some that will flow immediately, and others subject to development of state plans and submission of applications. I will not go into all the details this afternoon. But the idea is that the Federal Government is going to become a real partner financially in the conduct of these elections. It does not mean the conduct of elections is going to be fully supported by the Federal Government. Obviously, States, communities, and municipalities have to allocate resources for every election. But with these changes we are talking about, the costs, by and large, are going to be borne by the Federal Government. This is the first time we will become such an active participate in improving the election systems of our country. Lastly, this legislation establishes a new commission--the Election Assistance Commission--to assist states and voters. I want to acknowledge Senator McConnell's pivotal role in conceiving of this commission. In coming years, it will serve as an important source of new ideas and support for states as they take steps to improve the caliber of their elections. It allows us to have an ongoing relationship with election officials at the State and local level day in and day out rather than waiting for some crisis to occur or for some disastrous election result where we then go out and form some ad hoc commission to go back and look at what happened. For the first time, we are going to have a permanent commission that doesn't have rulemaking authority, except to the extent provided under section 9(a) of ``Motor-Voter,'' but sets voluntary standards and guidelines--a source of information for people to access, as we will, I am sure, in the years to come with technology being what it is, and a demand for efficiencies by the American public to update and to simplify the process to make voting as user friendly as it can possibly be while simultaneously protecting against the abuses in which some may wish to engage. We will now have a permanent venue where those ideas can be heard and recommendations can be made so that we will be involved on a continuing basis in a seamless way with the conduct of something as fundamental and as important as the elections in this country. New rights, new responsibilities, new resources. And with them, a new day for our Nation's democracy. Almost 2 years from the 2000 elections, this legislation will help America move beyond the days of hanging chads, butterfly ballots, and illegal purges of voters and accusations of voter fraud. It will make the central premise of our democracy--that the people are sovereign-- ring even more truly in the years to come. This legislation has the support of many individuals and organizations that have been critical to its success. They include former Presidents Ford and Carter. We thank them for their work on the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. They met early on and crafted some recommendations and ideas. They held hearings around the country. Once again, it is a great tribute to President Ford and President Carter for their ongoing commitment to this country and for the allocation of time from their schedules to dedicate efforts to make recommendations on how we might improve the election process. I thank them. The Congressional Black Caucus--for whom this legislative effort was the number one priority--I thank Eddie Bernice Johnson particularly as the Chair of the Black Caucus; John Conyers, my coauthor of this bill from the very outset; and every other member of the Black Caucus who has been tremendously helpful in working with us on this legislation and lending support to this final product. The National Association of Secretaries of State has been tremendously helpful. It is a bipartisan group that deals every day with the election laws in our country. They have to grapple with them. It is critically important. Everything we talked about on which they had some input to let us know whether or not these things will work-- obviously, many of them have not been tested yet, and time will only tell. But because they were involved here, we think the likelihood of things not working as well as one might normally expect will be minimized. I particularly thank my secretary of state, Susan Bysewicz of Connecticut, who has done a remarkable job in our State, has been tremendously creative, and was a source of a lot of good solid information. Secretary of State Kathy Cox of Georgia--I want to commend Georgia, by the way, one of the three States that made significant changes on their own in the election laws of their own States. They did a tremendous job. And Kathy Cox deserves a lot of credit for stepping up and doing things early on. I thank Secretary of State Chet Culver of Iowa, the youngest secretary of state in the country and the son of a former colleague of ours who is doing a fantastic job, for his input. Ninety-two percent of the people of Iowa are registered to vote. It is one of the highest in the country. They have 300,000 new registered voters in the last 3\1/2\ or 4 years in Iowa. Seventy-two percent of the people of that State voted in the last election. It is really a remarkable result, and a lot of it, again, is the result of the creative work of the secretary of state of Iowa. The NAACP has been tremendously helpful; the AFL-CIO; the United Auto Workers; the National Federation of the Blind; the United Cerebral Palsy Association; the American Foundation of the Blind; and the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, which represents persons with disabilities. I thank them for all of their tremendous help. I ask unanimous consent that letters from these organizations and individuals in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to recognize today as Lights On After School! Day. Lights On After School! is a project of the Afterschool Alliance to open the doors of after-school programs around the country to neighbors, community leaders, and the media so that everyone understands the importance of after-school programs to providing children of working parents with a safe place to be until their parents are home and providing all children with cultural and academic opportunities. Last year, more than 400,000 people participated in Lights On After School! events and I hope that even more will participate this year. I have been a longtime supporter of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which provides federal support for local after-school centers. For years, I have worked hard, as have many others, including Senator Jeffords and Senator Boxer, to increase support for these centers. And, with the appropriation having grown from $750,000 in fiscal year 1995 to $1 billion in fiscal year 2002, I think we've been phenomenally successful. I'm very disappointed that the President wants to freeze support for these programs, but I'm pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee's education appropriations bill increases funding for fiscal year 2003 by $90 million. I hope that we can do even better in the end. I can think of few programs with as wide-ranging support as these centers. Parents, teachers, youth groups, law enforcement, and others all recognize that providing extensive, effective after-school programs is one of the most important things we can do to support working parents and to help our children be safe and reach their potential in school and in life. As evidence, a survey taken in August by the Afterschool Alliance found that nine in ten voters agree that there should be organized activities for children and teens after school every day that provide opportunities for them to learn. By more than two to one, voters disagree with the President's proposal to freeze federal funding for after-school programs, and sixty-three percent are concerned that existing programs may have to reduce their services or close their doors due to lack of increased funding. More than nine in ten voters who have children in after-school programs believe that their children are safer and less likely to be involved in juvenile crime than children who aren't in after-school programs. Finally, 92 percent of these parents say their children do better in reading, writing and math because of after-school programs, and 87 percent say that their children are less likely to use alcohol and drugs because of after-school programs. I thank the Afterschool Alliance for all their work, and urge my colleagues to join me in commemorating Lights On After School!

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Let me respond very quickly on that. I understand the management of bills here. I spent 9 days on election reform with 46 amendments; 100 were offered. I think election reform is a pretty important issue. But I don't think it is more important than the issue we are discussing today. My point simply was to say, on matters such as this, that the role of the Senate is so critically important and the Founders intended it to be such that if Members of this body, elected to this body, feel strongly and passionately about being heard on this matter and have ideas they wish to contribute to the debate, we ought to be most reluctant to deprive a Member of this body of the opportunity to be heard. I understand the significance of moving quickly. But it is dangerous indeed on a matter of this gravity to curtail debate to merely try to get a resolution adopted quickly. I want to hear what my colleagues have to say. I know we are going to come to a conclusion on this fairly quickly. But to cut off debate prematurely I think would be a mistake.

Mr. DODD. I made the point. Certainly my point is that we should try to resolve this matter without conflict, if possible. There was some confusion about that, when I listened to the Secretary of State and the President, as to whether it is regime change or weapons of mass destruction. There is a lot of confusion in the American public about that as well. Let us assume they are going to come together and try to resolve that without any conflict. It ought to be done. I think the President's father did it well and right back in 1991 with a coalition. It worked better than imagined. It certainly set a precedent for how we are going to deal or should deal with matters in the future. I have said the reason I am supporting the resolution is that I believe it will strengthen our hand at the United Nations to get them to act with some assertiveness. But I also have said, at the end of the day, if the security interests of the United States are in jeopardy and there is nothing else to be done in the United Nations, or if other coalitions would not support us, we will never leave the security of this country, this Nation, vulnerable and solely dependent upon the willingness of the international organizations to support us.

Mr. DODD. I do not know if my colleague was listening to my remarks.

Mr. DODD. I will be brief in my answer.

Mr. DODD. After I complete my remarks. We still have time to do this right. We should have an opportunity to debate and vote on all meaningful alternatives to the pending resolution, regardless of parliamentary technicalities. For that reason, I join with my colleague, Senator Byrd, in opposing cloture when we vote on this issue tomorrow. I am not persuaded that the situation is so dire that a few more days or an additional week of deliberations at the U.N. will be harmful to our interests. I have been in this body 22 years. The unique role of the Senate is the role of debate, unlimited debate. It is what makes us fundamentally different from the Chamber down the hall. If there are Members of this body who wish to be heard and wish to offer meaningful ideas to something as critical as this, then asking this body to take a few more days to weigh and discuss those matters ought not to be denied. We are invoking cloture too often. I know people are interested in efficiency, but if efficiency was the only goal of the Founding Fathers, they never would have created this body to begin with. They understood the importance of debate and discussion when a matter of this magnitude and this significance is before the American public. I don't know how many others intend to support my colleague from West Virginia, but I do, not because I necessarily agree with him in his final conclusion, but I stand to defend his right to be heard and to see to it that he has the opportunity to exhaust his ideas, to share them not only with Senators but with the American people. I hope cloture will not necessarily be invoked prematurely. Our own CIA Director states the likelihood of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or passing them off to terrorists to do so is currently long. The real risk emerges should Saddam Hussein believe an attack by the United States is imminent. That is according to press accounts today. I hope the President does not see the passage of a resolution in the Congress as a termination state for his efforts at the United Nations but rather as a sign of unity and support of continued effort by the United States to elicit further action by the United Nations. Senators Biden, Lugar, Senator Hagel and others crafted an approach to this issue that I found extremely constructive. I regret the administration did not endorse their ideas. This week's debate would be far less contentious had they done so. Their idea was, of course, to focus on the weapons of mass destruction, a multilateral force, unilateral action if the U.N. efforts or multilateral efforts failed and serious thoughts about what you do to win the peace after the conflict is over. That idea will not be offered as an alternative. I regret that is the case. It is an idea that I found potentially rather attractive. Some very important elements of the Biden-Lugar draft resolution have been incorporated in the White House compromise language. I commend the White House, those that have been involved in crafting this resolution for including this language. First in this resolution there is an acknowledgment of U.S. efforts within the United Nations Security Council to forge international agreement on a prompt and decisive strategy to compel Iraqi compliance and the explicit congressional endorsement of such evidence. Second, the requirement that the President make several important determinations before exercising any military option; namely, ``that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States.'' And that our efforts to fight international terrorism will not be undermined by military action against Iraq. Those determinations are going to be extremely important. Third, and most importantly, the narrowing of the President's authority to use force to specifically defend the national security of the United States against a threat posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As I noted earlier, Secretary Colin Powell made it clear in testimony before the Senate and in remarks elsewhere, that it is Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that is the threat to our national security. If Iraq disarms or is disarmed, then the immediate threat to our security would evaporate and force would not be necessary. The benefits of that outcome should be obvious to all. Finally, the new language recognizes the need to have in place an effective exit strategy should military force prove unavoidable. These changes in the original text of the resolution are extremely important. Without them, I would not be able to consider support of this legislation. Let me sum up where this Senator stands on this. I support Senator Byrd's motion because more time is needed. It is not a burden on this body to consider questions and to listen to Members. We should not be cut off in debate in being heard on a matter of this importance and significance. I regret Senators Biden and Lugar and others have not moved forward with their proposal. It was the most comprehensive approach, in my view, to dealing with the questions of weapons of mass destruction, U.N. involvement in the aftermath of the conflict. Third, I think every effort ought to be made to resolve this threat as peacefully as possible. Fourth, that if military force becomes necessary, every effort must be made to do it multilaterally either through the U.N. or multilateral coalitions. Fifth, I believe the more immediate threat is international terrorism, and that such a threat can only be contained through collective action. Sixth, if we must act unilaterally, then the threat must be clear, grave, and imminent. Last, in cases of preemptive action, we must be even more sure the threat is immediate and grave for the obvious reasons of setting precedent that other nations may model in conflicts that threat everyone around the globe. The context within which I deliberated over the difficult decision on how I would vote on this imperfect resolution has been hard, always being mindful of the dangers that could result from granting authority contained in this resolution. Ultimately, my main reason for supporting the resolution is that I believe the chances of avoiding war with Iraq are enhanced substantially if this country is united as a nation. I know members of the United Nations Security Council are listening to this debate very intently and are going to watch this vote very carefully. American unity will strengthen, I believe, the President's hand in convincing members of the Security Council that the civilized world must act and must unite in its action. Today, in joining with many of my colleagues in support of this resolution, I do so in the fervent hope that this show of unity in authorizing the President to use force will reduce the likelihood that force will ultimately be necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, before he departs the floor, I commend my colleague from Nebraska. I regret--it is late in the day, and I am sure there is going to be more speechifying tomorrow on this subject matter--but I regret there were not more Members present to hear his comments. Senator Hagel is one of the most thoughtful Members of this body. When he talks about the sum of all our parts and talks about being a father and a soldier, it is always in our interest to listen to those who have worn the military uniform into combat when we debate the issues of war and peace because they know more than just intellectually and theoretically what the price can be. I believe I should give my remarks because I have written these things out, but I can associate myself with the comments of my friend from Nebraska. He pretty much couches a lot of my thinking on how this has evolved, where we are, what we have come to this evening, the pace at which we are moving, the regrets I feel about how I wish this debate were being conducted under circumstances other than on the eve of an election in this country where already the campaign spots are running wildly one way or the other in terms of where people are. So I commend the Senator for his comments this afternoon on this subject matter. I come this afternoon to speak about the subject which is on the minds not only of all of us but I think millions of our constituents across the country, the possibility of going to war against Iraq. On Monday night, President Bush, I think, spoke for all of us. I know of no one who really disagrees at all. He described Saddam Hussein as a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction. It is that addiction that demands a strong response. We all agree on that. There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly. I suspect virtually every Member of this Chamber would not vary too much with those conclusions. How imminent that threat is, unfortunately, has been extremely difficult to assess. This is because of a troubling new trend by the intelligence agencies to not just give us information and objective analysis but, in my opinion, too often to insert themselves into policymaking. That is not their job. It is not the job of the intelligence agencies to make policy. It is their job to provide others in the executive branch and the Congress with neutral information, with facts on which we will ultimately base our policy judgments. This is a very troubling trend, in my view, which I believe ought to stop. If we are to go to war, it is even more important that we trust the information given by the intelligence agencies. Nevertheless, this week we are debating because there are profound disagreements over how, when, and with whom we should act to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. To have a different answer to these questions than the President should not be considered unpatriotic or partisan. Unfortunately, that is the kind of rhetoric we are hearing too often today. Let's be honest. We are less than 30 days out from a national congressional election in this country. That is never an easy time for the Congress and the executive branch to come together on much of anything, let alone the question of war and peace. Some in this Chamber have said the eve of an election is in fact the best time for Members of Congress to make decisions such as these. I could not disagree more. As my good friend and colleague, Senator Byrd, has passionately reminded us every day this week, forcing a vote on this issue so close to an election will, whether we like it or not, embroil the issue in politics more than usual. The campaign ads running across this country speak for themselves. Forcing Congress's hand on this important matter does a disservice, I believe, to the American public and to this most profound and serious debate. But now we have no choice but to consider the matter and to vote on the issues of this utmost gravity, the issues of war and peace and of life and death, for those who will engage in it. The President has asked Congress to grant him the authority to use force against Iraq, if he deems it necessary, and Congress will provide the President with the authority to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq. But we will do so only after careful consideration of all of the stakes involved. My colleagues, Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin, and others, have done an outstanding job of highlighting their questions and concerns, reflecting the questions and concerns raised by millions of Americans across political and economic lines, across geographic lines in this country; questions and concerns regarding the use of force and the resolution the President originally sent to Congress, a number of these concerns which I think many of us share. Many of us believe the language of the President's original request was too far reaching, empowering the President to use all means necessary that he would determine appropriate, including force, to restore peace and stability to the region. That was an open invitation for an American military involvement in the broad context of the Middle East. And the language was far too unilateral. It did not even mention a role for the United Nations or our allies. Thanks to the efforts of our congressional leaders--and I commend specifically Senator Daschle and others--we now have a compromise resolution, a modified resolution, correcting many of the evident flaws in the initial resolution that was sent to us. The resolution now before us is limited to Iraq, and it contemplates the possibility of resolving this threat peacefully through the use of diplomacy. It also acknowledges the importance of maintaining our focus on our continuing war on terrorism as we consider what action to take in Iraq. Despite these changes, of course, questions do remain. First and foremost, will the President use the authority granted by Congress to go it alone? Or will he take the time to build the international coalition that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is the better course of action to follow? If he chooses to go it alone, I believe that will be a terrible mistake, and I think millions of others in this country do as well. Given the geography and the politics of the region in the Middle East, I do not see how the United States could engage Iraq militarily, without the help of others, without seriously undermining our chances of success. And it would be terribly destabilizing to the entire region. There are many reasons for acting with international support. I have already commended the President for his decision to look first to the United Nations to answer these questions. On September 12, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush enumerated Iraq's repeated failures to meet its international obligations. The U.N. has been a valued body for the last one-half of the 20th century. It has not always done what we wanted. It has not always acted deliberately. It has not always acted with the kind of force and direction that many of us wish it would have. But think what the world would have looked like over the last 50 years had there not been a United Nations to have a forum where the world gathers to try to resolve the many conflicts that confront us. It has not served our interests well to have national leadership ridicule this institution. We are the founders, in many ways, of the U.N. system. It was the great leaders in the post-World War II period who insisted we try to frame an international body where we might resolve disputes other than going through what we did throughout World War II. My hope would be that as dark as these clouds may seem as we debate and consider the issue of Iraq, that this may be an opportunity for the institution of the United Nations to mature into the 21st century role it must if we are going to succeed in the efforts against terrorism, the efforts against Iraq or other problems that will emerge, without any question, in the coming years. My hope will be that this U.N. will look at what we are doing, listen to what we are saying as one nation, and consider how important its role must be in the coming weeks and months. If there ever were a set of circumstances that justified U.N. action, I believe it is now on Iraq, without any question. If the framework of international law, developed at the U.N. over the last 50 years to protect peace and security, is to stand, then the U.N. must act with leadership. It is my sincere hope that the President has the patience and staying power to make the U.N. work in support of our interests. There is also no question that the President's speech, in which he called for a more engaged U.N., got Saddam Hussein's attention. Iraq quickly announced its willingness to permit weapons inspections beginning as early as the middle of October. At the end of the day, I suspect Iraq will accept whatever terms are ultimately contained in a final version of the U.N. resolution now under consideration. To be credible, however, that resolution must have teeth. It must be enforceable, by military means, if necessary, should Iraq fail to comply with any new disarmament regime. I also have questions about the ultimate goal of U.S. strategy, what it is and what it ought to be. Is it the destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or the Iraqi regime itself? Secretary of State Colin Powell was definitive before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in saying--and I quote him--regime change for its own sake was not the administration's goal. Specifically, he stated: If Iraq was to disarm as a result of an inspection regime that gave us and the Security Council confidence that it had been disarmed, I think it unlikely that we would find a casus belli. Many Members are still very concerned that President Bush has regime change on his mind. If anything, Monday night's speech clarified this position when he said that ``regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our Nation.'' I hope the President will heed the advice of his Secretary of State and keep our eye on the ball. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should be our immediate threat or seen as our immediate threat, not some two- bit dictator that Saddam Hussein is. It is the weapons of mass destruction; but for those we would not be here debating or discussing the matter we are this evening. Finally, I still have concerns about how the President intends to manage the war on terrorism if we confront Iraq militarily. September 11 revealed Saddam Hussein is not the only or perhaps even the greatest threat to our national security. Those who hold no allegiance to any state, who have no name or return address, are a far greater threat to America and the American way of life. As recent arrests in Buffalo, NY, and Portland, OR, remind us, these threats are not always in some distant land. The United States acting without global support could divert our military intelligence assets away from our global effort to combat terrorism and to uproot terrorist organizations. It could also weaken the multilateral coalition forged over the last 12 months to combat this international scourge. I state for the record I do not hold some ironclad view that the United States should never use force or act alone. And I believe that the President of the United States already has the authority as Commander in Chief to deploy military force to protect America against all imminent threats. The pending resolution recognizes this reality. The fact is, unless force is a real option, our resolution will not have the credibility needed to, once and for all, get Saddam Hussein's full attention on this matter. As I said earlier, I accept the proposition that we must deal with the Iraqi threat. I stand prepared, as almost all of our colleagues do, to support the unilateral use of force against Iraq but only if U.N. or other multinational efforts prove ineffective, or if Saddam Hussein is using them as a guise to rebuild his offensive weapons capabilities. We still have time to do this right.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Salvator Altchek, the beloved ``$5 doctor'' of Brooklyn, NY, who passed away last month at the age of 92. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the beautiful obituary commemorating the life of Dr. Altchek written by Douglas Martin of the New York Times. Dr. Altchek was warmly known as ``the $5 doctor'' because he spent virtually his entire 67-year career treating anyone who showed up at his basement office in a working class section of Brooklyn Heights, charging them little or nothing for his services. Despite treating thousands of people, and delivering thousands of babies, most people never heard of Dr. Altchek. That's because he sought neither fame nor fortune. His only goal in life was to help as many people as possible. In so doing, he touched the lives of so many individuals and so many families. He was truly an American treasure. I leave it to the words of Douglas Martin's obituary to tell the story of Dr. Salvator Altchek, whose lifetime of selfless devotion to helping strangers will continue to serve as an inspiration to us all. I urge all of my colleagues to read this special tribute to a very, very special American.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am happy to.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am going to leave now.

Mr. DODD. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. DODD. I also thank the leadership, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, for their support. When they asked me how long it would take to debate the election reform bill on the floor, I said I thought I could do it in 24 to 48 hours. About 12 days later, I was still here. Their patience was almost unlimited. We were able to get it done, and I am proud we were able to do so. I know there were editorial comments over the last number of weeks and months, saying where are these people, why can't they get this done? We did something you are probably not supposed to do. We did it quietly. It was not quiet inside the room, but we didn't announce every day to the press what we were doing because I felt if we did, we would never get anything done. I have been up almost every night until 2 or 3 in the morning. I have spent almost every weekend involved in this legislation over the last several weeks and months. I thank colleagues who managed to keep this relatively quiet so we could get the job done. Had we not done it, we would not be standing here recommending this product to our colleagues for their consideration, when the other body and the Senate votes on this bill. I will have more to say about it when the bill comes to the floor. I wanted to bring my colleagues the good news that we were able to come to agreement on this election reform bill before this Congress, the 107th Congress, became a record of history. Let me also say, since I am still in morning business, to my colleague from Virginia who was here, and my colleague and friend from West Virginia, on the matter before us, I have great respect for both of them. This is a weighty and important matter. I didn't want to take time away from that discussion today, but I would like to be heard on the subject matter at the appropriate time. I know my colleague from West Virginia has some strong feelings. I want to say to him and in the presence of my good friend from Virginia, I have known these two individuals for many years. They have great reverence for this institution, great reverence for the legislative body. I carry very proudly in my pocket every single day of my life, 7 days a week, a copy of the United States Constitution. It was given to me years ago by the Senator I sit next to, Robert C. Byrd. I walk around with it on weekends, evenings, wherever I am. I carry it. I hope in this discussion, not just this one but others, people will listen to what he has to say about this document and our obligations to it as a coequal branch of government. The Founders did not envision this particular debate. Probably the name Iraq didn't exist at the time the Constitution was ratified or written. They envisioned circumstances like this. They wanted to make sure there would be a sense of weight and counterweight without giving one side an advantage, necessarily, but that we would deliberate very seriously about matters such as this, certainly the matter of going to war. I have great reverence for this document and great reverence for people who embrace it and cherish it, knowing it is only as good as each generation's willingness to defend it, and that our obligation to coming generations is to give them the tools to appreciate what it means. It is a subtle document. This is not a document an ignorant nation would be willing to fight for and sustain. The right to say what you want and have people stand up even when they vehemently disagree with what you are saying takes an educated, sophisticated population to appreciate. Certainly the rights of a Congress, a legislative branch to appropriate, the right to declare war, the right of a Commander in Chief to lead during difficult times, these are not notions that can be easily understood if you are not well educated and prepared. And it becomes incumbent upon us, in this particular moment, to serve not only as a source to resolve the matter before us, but to educate our constituents and the people of this country about why this document is important, particularly in moments like this, where none of us are ever asked to cast a more significant vote. It is not a vote on a Supreme Court justice, or not even amending the Constitution, but the decision is whether or not young men and women will go into battle and lay down their lives for us. Both of these individuals understand this better than I--John Warner, particularly, because he has donned that uniform. I served in the military briefly, but I never had to face an enemy across the firing zone, and I respect somebody who has. Those who have engaged in battle seem far more cautious about committing this Nation to conflict. Those who have not, seem, on many occasions, to fail to understand the significance of what we may be asking people to endure. I will have more to say about this specific matter. I didn't want this moment to pass. I wanted to express my deep thanks to my colleagues. We have closed caucuses every week to discuss the matters before us, political and otherwise. I have watched over the last several weeks, and it is not well known--maybe there is a historic record kept somewhere, but I wish every person in America could have been at the caucus luncheons to listen to our colleague from West Virginia passionately defend the Constitution of the United States. There is no press release, and there is no television show afterwards. It is just one person standing up defending the very document that gave rise to this institution and the rights all of us enjoy as Americans. I thank him immensely for having the courage of his convictions, the strong legs, the good set of lungs, and the determination to be heard. I thank my colleague from Virginia for all he does every day to see the ideals and values of the Constitution are carried out by his Members. He does that whenever I have been with him in the Chamber and in committees. He is a person who deeply cherishes this Constitution.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know the debate is about Iraq and the pending resolutions. At an appropriate time, I would like to address that subject matter. But I want to take the floor briefly this afternoon to announce some good news. Early this morning, at around 2 a.m., we were able to reach an agreement on the election reform bill between the House and the Senate. Earlier today, I held a press conference with the leadership on this bill in the House, including Congressman Bob Ney from Ohio, the chairman of the House Administration Committee; Congressman Steny Hoyer from Maryland, and Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas, who is the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus; as well as my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, and my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond; with statements from Corrine Brown from Florida and John Conyers from Michigan, my original cosponsor, who could not be there but wanted to be heard on this issue. This has been a long and arduous trail over the last two years, as I know the Presiding Officer is aware. I believe the Presiding Officer was in the Chair about a year-and-a-half ago when we announced on the floor that we had an agreement, at least in the Senate anyway, on this issue. So it is a historic day. If we are able to adopt this conference report in the coming days before adjournment, it will be the first time in over 200 years--since the founding of this Republic--when the Federal Government becomes a partner with the States and localities in the conduct of Federal elections. None of us have to be reminded of the tragic events that occurred almost 2 years ago in Florida and many other places around the country. They showed that the condition of our democracy was deteriorating because the quality of our elections was falling apart. Trying to reform the electoral process was critically important for all of us. We needed to provide adequate resources--the change of outdated equipment. In my own State of Connecticut, we have used the same voting machines for 40 or 50 years now. The company that made them has long since gone out of business. In light of the constitutional crisis that plagued our nation two years ago, I believe it would have been a great shortcoming not to pass this legislation before the end of this session of Congress. There has been a lot of talk about whether or not we would get this done. Obviously, when you talk about election reform, unlike other subject matters where people will likely defer to someone who may know more about the subject matter, every one of us in this Chamber is an expert because we got here through the electoral process. For too many years, there has been a Republican suspicion, as my colleague from Kentucky likes to point out, that Democrats were interested in having everyone vote, no matter if they had a right to or not; and Democrats were suspicious of Republicans that they too often wanted to deny people a right to vote or to make it difficult. It is very difficult to craft a piece of legislation when people have such reluctance and hesitation. However, we were able to break down all of that, and what we did is come up with a bill that has new responsibilities, new rights, and new resources for the first time in our country. It is a civil rights act in many ways. The rights here will say: The voter gets to cast a provisional ballot; and the voter has a right to see your ballot and correct your ballot. In addition, the bill gives the voter a right to redress grievances through a remedy process, if, in fact, a voter is denied these rights. I will quickly say, a remedy process that isn't everything I would like it to be, but the bill that came out of the Senate had very little remedy in it while the House had none. We fashioned a remedy in conference which, as you know, is very difficult when there are strong voices in opposition to doing anything. We did not roll back in any way the motor voter legislation. The Department of Justice is involved, obviously, to enforce the provisions of this act. The responsibilities are also here on the part of voters. Senator Bond felt very strongly about having some requirements that a person who is registered by mail or voted by mail would in some way identify themselves. I know there are those who are concerned that having some form of identification could be problematic for the first-time voter, for the first-time registrant. Those provisions are in the bill. If you are a first-time voter or registrant, then you have to provide some identification. There is no requirement in this bill that mandates any specific form of identification. Can you use a photo ID? Yes, you can. It must be current and valid. That is all we say. Can there some other forms of identification? Yes, there can be. We also provide that States must check the last four digits of a voter's Social Security number or driver's license. If the voter has neither, he or she will be given a four-digit number. It is a simpler way and less intrusive for people to become registrants. You would have statewide voter registration for the first time. So if you move around in your State, from one town to the next, you do not have to register again every time you move. But if you move to another State, you will have to register in that new State. We think that this is going to help a great deal toward eliminating some of the fraud issues because people won't be able to jump around from one local jurisdiction to another local jurisdiction in the same State and vote in different places. And with high-technology, we will be able to monitor the process much more effectively. These are the rights and responsibilities in this bill. The resources are $3.8 billion over the next several years. The administration had already agreed, with Speaker Hastert and others, to commit more than $400 million in fiscal year 2002-2003. Obviously, as part of the supplemental, that money got vetoed by the President, but not because of election reform. We are very confident, based on conversations the House leadership has had and the discussions we have had here, that there will be something in the neighborhood of $750 million included right away, so antiquated equipment in the States with levers or punch-card systems can be replaced. Now, do I have an absolute guarantee for all of that? Obviously, no, because we have to vote on the appropriations. Did I condition these requirements on it? No. Are there requirements here? Yes. But this is an authorization bill. Obviously, if you do not have it as a requirement that had to be met, and you left it to the vagaries of whether or not the appropriations would be made, then these requirements would only be voluntary, and all we would be doing is subsidizing the status quo. For those who are concerned we have no ironclad commitment on this, that is difficult to get in any area of our budget. But I am convinced, given the bipartisan nature of the support for this bill, the bicameral support for it, knowing how strongly the State and local officials feel about it, that we will be able to achieve the necessary funding requirements in the coming years. There are staggering provisions in the bill where various points become operative. If we had passed this bill a year ago, we might have been able to move up these dates. In light of the fact we are passing the bill in the very last days of the 107th Congress, it is going to be more difficult to effectuate some of these changes in the shorter term. We all witnessed what happened recently in Florida with new equipment and new requirements down as a result of legislation passed at the State level. There was a lot of misinformation, a lot of confusion. We want to be careful not to do that here. We have new requirements. We have new responsibilities in this bill. We want to give people an adequate time to become familiar with them. We have provisions that will assist communities to educate poll workers. We encourage young people to become involved as poll workers and poll watchers and to encourage their participation. We establish a permanent commission. For the first time, the Federal Government will have a place where people can comment on an ongoing basis on how we can improve the right to vote and to have the vote count. Despite the fact the Constitution speaks clearly about a Federal role and a State role in the conduct of elections, we have never done this before. For most of the last 200 years, the Federal Government has honored its Constitutional commitment. Except for the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the Federal Government largely has stayed out of the States' role to conduct elections. We are not becoming overly intrusive. It is still a local matter. It is still a State matter. But we have become, with this legislation, a partner where we say to our local communities and States, in the conduct of Federal elections, your government wants to help, wants to be involved through resources. By creating some requirements, by creating some responsibilities, we think we can vastly improve the process. For 20 million Americans who are disabled, who are either blind or manually disabled, if we pass this legislation, for the first time there must be voting equipment mandated by law that will allow a blind person or a manually disabled person to cast a ballot privately and independently. Presently, there are no ballots written in braille, or an audio system--except for one jurisdiction. If you go into any building in this city, there are requirements that an elevator be in braille so you know what floor you are going to. The day has arrived when a person, regardless of their ability to see or not, should be able to walk into a polling place and read a ballot in braille. This is not the 18th or 19th century. It is the 21st century. I am proud to say, on a strong bipartisan basis, with little or no debate or argument, we have included in these provisions a requirement that people who are disabled, particularly those who are blind, will for the first time be able to walk into a polling place and not have to rely on a stranger to go in and help them cast a ballot. I have a sister who has been blind since birth. She is a teacher. I am very proud of her. She is a remarkable woman. I would like to know that my sister, as she reaches retirement age as a teacher, will, as a result of her brother's work on a bill, be able to cast a ballot without having to rely on someone telling her how to vote. So for millions of disabled Americans, this legislation is a major breakthrough for them as well. I do not intend to go through all the details. If there are people here demanding perfection, I will have to disappoint them. If I could have written it myself, it would have been different. But, unfortunately, there are people who gather in a conference who have differing opinions. I wish they didn't, but they do. When they do, you have to compromise. That is not an ugly word. As long as you are not compromising your principles, that, in a legislative context of working out arrangements, where there are people who hold strong views, is the only way we get anything done. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the staff people in my office and that of Senators Bond and McConnell, Congressman Hoyer, Congressman Ney, and others be printed in the Record. We don't give these people enough credit. They were up all night last night scrubbing through this bill. After we quit about 2:00 or 2:30 in the morning, they stayed at it all night. I wish the American people, when they talk about faceless bureaucrats, sometimes could peer down and see on how many nights and how many days, long after the Members have argued their points in broad terms, these fine staff people of ours, who work on behalf of taxpayers, stay on countless nights, through weekends, to hammer out details, to see to it we produce the products we can. I am deeply grateful to all of them. They include: Kennie Gill, Ronnie Gillespie, and Shawn Maher. Chairman Ney's staff: Paul Vinovich, Chet Kalis, Roman Buhler, Matt Peterson, and Pat Leahy. Senator McConnell's staff: Brian Lewis and Leon Sequeira. Senator Bond's staff: Julie Damann and Jack Bartling. Senator Hoyer's staff: Bill Kable, Keith Abovchar, and Len Shanbon. Senator Schumer's staff: Polly Trottenberg. Senator Durbin's staff: Bill Weber. Eddie Bernice Johnson's staff: Paul Braithwaite. I thank Congressman Ney. I didn't know him very well before. He is from Ohio, worked in the State legislature of that State, and is chairman of the House Administration Committee. I have developed a strong affinity for him. He is a fine person, a fine man. He fought very hard for what he believed in, defended the other body's positions. Because of the many nights and weekends, we have gotten to know each other. I thank Congressman Steny Hoyer. Many of us know and served with him over the years, from Maryland, a remarkably fine individual who did a great job with Congressman Ney in producing the House bill. He has been the leader in the House on so many occasions dealing with disability issues. From his staff, Bill Cable, and others did a wonderful job. I thank him. My colleagues over here, I mentioned Senator Bond and Senator McConnell. I thank Senators Schumer and Durbin, who worked very hard. Bob Torricelli worked on an early bill with Senator McConnell, did a great job trying to bring this matter to our attention. There are so many people here. I am afraid I will leave people out. I ask unanimous consent to include statements by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congressman John Conyers, and Congresswoman Corrine Brown be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements, provided by local governments to volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders, from the definition of income and wages. Last week, Congressman John Larson of Connecticut, the chief author of this proposal, introduced identical legislation in the House. This bill would allow local governments around the country the opportunity to provide incentives, such as property tax abatements, to their volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders. These incentives will help local governments recruit local volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders in order to ensure their communities are adequately prepared to respond to emergencies. Police officers, firefighters, and emergency service workers are America's front-line defenders in the face of fires, medical emergencies, terrorist threats, incidents with hazardous materials and other emergencies. Many of them are salaried employees of their respective State or local government. Many of them are volunteers, as well. Many States and localities lack adequate resources to recruit these vital public servants and therefore to fully respond to the full range of possible threats this country faces. Many small towns cannot afford full-time paid firefighters, therefore a majority of municipalities and counties throughout the country depend on volunteer firefighters and volunteer emergency service workers to cover their front lines. Every day, volunteers throughout the country make a commitment, on top of their work schedules, to put their lives on the line for their communities. Volunteer firefighters comprise 75 percent of firefighters in our country. Unfortunately, statistics show that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency responders have been declining over the years at an alarming rate. The number of volunteer firefighters around the country has declined by 5 to 10 percent since 1983, while the number of emergency calls made has sharply increased. Many local governments recruit and retain volunteer firefighters and emergency service workers by offering volunteers a property tax abatement that directly reduces their property taxes. For example, Connecticut enacted a law in 1999 allowing municipalities to offer abatements of up to $1,000 per year on local taxes to firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics or ambulance drivers. This abatement has helped local fire department in their volunteer recruitment efforts throughout the state. Despite these successful recruitment efforts, the IRS recently ruled that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages and income. This ruling would pose real hardship on firefighters and the communities where they live and work, in Connecticut and in many other States, as well. While State and local governments are working to increase incentives to volunteer, this ruling would undermine those efforts. Some may argue that volunteering for the community should be without any compensation, including abatements. However, the reality is that when both heads of household hold full-time employment, it is often too difficult for them to take time away from their families without some form of compensation. A $1,000 property tax break is not a large request for the great service these men and women provide to our communities. These men and women risk their lives for others. The least we can do is allow states and towns to offer them modest incentives to serve. For some, counting this abatement as income may put them in a higher tax bracket, therefore forcing them to pay substantially more in taxes. Also, because of the extra paperwork required and costs due to the IRS decision, some municipalities are having to reconsider providing abatement programs. For many towns and municipalities it would be entirely too expensive to have to both pay FICA taxes, and lose property tax revenues. Municipalities across the nation have enough trouble recruiting volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel without also having to face obstacles from the IRS. This ruling undermines the good intentions and creative efforts of many localities. If our municipalities are willing to forgo their local tax revenues in order to ensure they have enough volunteer firefighters and emergency service providers to protect their communities, and if members of the community are doing their part by volunteering, then we, the Federal government, should do our part and support local efforts to ensure that all our communities have adequate protection. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation so that we can ensure that state and local governments have the flexibility to design and implement recruiting and retention programs that benefit not only the volunteer firefighters and emergency medical providers, but also the communities they protect.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements, provided by local governments to volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders, from the definition of income and wages. Last week, Congressman John Larson of Connecticut, the chief author of this proposal, introduced identical legislation in the House. This bill would allow local governments around the country the opportunity to provide incentives, such as property tax abatements, to their volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders. These incentives will help local governments recruit local volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders in order to ensure their communities are adequately prepared to respond to emergencies. Police officers, firefighters, and emergency service workers are America's front-line defenders in the face of fires, medical emergencies, terrorist threats, incidents with hazardous materials and other emergencies. Many of them are salaried employees of their respective State or local government. Many of them are volunteers, as well. Many States and localities lack adequate resources to recruit these vital public servants and therefore to fully respond to the full range of possible threats this country faces. Many small towns cannot afford full-time paid firefighters, therefore a majority of municipalities and counties throughout the country depend on volunteer firefighters and volunteer emergency service workers to cover their front lines. Every day, volunteers throughout the country make a commitment, on top of their work schedules, to put their lives on the line for their communities. Volunteer firefighters comprise 75 percent of firefighters in our country. Unfortunately, statistics show that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency responders have been declining over the years at an alarming rate. The number of volunteer firefighters around the country has declined by 5 to 10 percent since 1983, while the number of emergency calls made has sharply increased. Many local governments recruit and retain volunteer firefighters and emergency service workers by offering volunteers a property tax abatement that directly reduces their property taxes. For example, Connecticut enacted a law in 1999 allowing municipalities to offer abatements of up to $1,000 per year on local taxes to firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics or ambulance drivers. This abatement has helped local fire department in their volunteer recruitment efforts throughout the state. Despite these successful recruitment efforts, the IRS recently ruled that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages and income. This ruling would pose real hardship on firefighters and the communities where they live and work, in Connecticut and in many other States, as well. While State and local governments are working to increase incentives to volunteer, this ruling would undermine those efforts. Some may argue that volunteering for the community should be without any compensation, including abatements. However, the reality is that when both heads of household hold full-time employment, it is often too difficult for them to take time away from their families without some form of compensation. A $1,000 property tax break is not a large request for the great service these men and women provide to our communities. These men and women risk their lives for others. The least we can do is allow states and towns to offer them modest incentives to serve. For some, counting this abatement as income may put them in a higher tax bracket, therefore forcing them to pay substantially more in taxes. Also, because of the extra paperwork required and costs due to the IRS decision, some municipalities are having to reconsider providing abatement programs. For many towns and municipalities it would be entirely too expensive to have to both pay FICA taxes, and lose property tax revenues. Municipalities across the nation have enough trouble recruiting volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel without also having to face obstacles from the IRS. This ruling undermines the good intentions and creative efforts of many localities. If our municipalities are willing to forgo their local tax revenues in order to ensure they have enough volunteer firefighters and emergency service providers to protect their communities, and if members of the community are doing their part by volunteering, then we, the Federal government, should do our part and support local efforts to ensure that all our communities have adequate protection. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation so that we can ensure that state and local governments have the flexibility to design and implement recruiting and retention programs that benefit not only the volunteer firefighters and emergency medical providers, but also the communities they protect.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wise to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:00 a.m., in SR-301, Russell Senate Office Building, on Thursday, October 3, 2002, to hold a hearing on the nomination of Bruce R. James, of Nevada, to be Public Printer. Individuals and organizations wishing to submit a statement for the hearing record are requested to contact Carole Blessington of the Rules Committee staff on 202-224-0278. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Ms. Blessington.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, to introduce the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Collins, Wellstone, and DeWine. Child abuse and neglect continue to be significant problems in the United States. Recent reports present startling indications of child maltreatment in the United States. About 3 million referrals concerning the welfare of about 5 million children were made to Child Protection Services, CPS, agencies throughout the Nation in 2000. Of these referrals, about two-thirds, 62 percent, were ``screened-in'' for further assessment and investigation. Professionals, including teachers, law enforcement officers, social service workers, and physicians made more than half, 56 percent, of the screened-in reports. About 879,000 children were found to be victims of child maltreatment. About two-thirds, 63 percent, suffered neglect, including medical neglect; 19 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; and 8 percent were emotionally maltreated. Many of these children fail to receive adequate protection and services. Nearly half, 45 percent, of these children failed to receive services. The most tragic consequence of child maltreatment is death. The April maltreatment summary data released by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, shows that about 1,200 children died of abuse and neglect in 2000. Children younger than six years of age accounted for 85 percent of child fatalities and children younger than one year of age accounted for 44 percent of child fatalities. Child abuse is not a new phenomenon. For more than a decade, numerous reports have called attention to the tragic abuse and neglect of children and the inadequacy of our Child Protection Services, CPS, systems to protect our children. In 1990, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that ``child abuse and neglect is a national emergency.'' In 1995, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reported that ``State and local CPS caseworkers are often overextended and cannot adequately function under their current caseloads.'' The report also stated that, ``in many jurisdictions, caseloads are so high that CPS response is limited to taking the complaint call, making a single visit to the home, and deciding whether or not the complaint is valid, often without any subsequent monitoring of the family.'' A 1997 General Accounting Office, GAO, report found, ``the CPS system is in crisis, plagued by difficult problems, such as growing caseloads, increasingly complex social problems and underlying child maltreatment, and ongoing systemic weaknesses in day-to-day operations.'' According to GAO, CPS weaknesses include ``difficulty in maintaining a skilled workforce; the inability to consistently follow key policies and procedures designed to protect children; developing useful case data and record-keeping systems, such as automated case management; and establishing good working relationships with the courts.'' According to the May 2001 ``Report from the Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State and County Data and Findings'' conducted by the American Public Human Services Association, APHSA, the Child Welfare League of America, CWLA, and the Alliance for Children and Families, annual staff turnover is high and morale is low among CPS workers. The report found that CPS workers had an annual turnover rate of 22 percent, 76 percent higher than the turnover rate for total agency staff. The ``preventable'' turnover rate was 67 percent, or two-thirds higher than the rate for all other direct service workers and total agency staff. In some States, 75 percent or more of staff turnovers were preventable. States rated a number of retention issues as highly problematic. In descending order they are: workloads that are too high and/or demanding; caseloads that are too high; too much worker time spent on travel, paperwork, courts, and meetings; workers not feeling valued by the agency; low salaries; supervision problems; and insufficient resources for families and children. To prevent turnover and retain quality CPS staff, some States have begun to increase in-service training, increase education opportunities, increase supervisory training, increase or improve orientation, increase worker safety, and offer flex-time or changes in office hours. Most States, however, continue to grapple with staff turnover and training issues. Continued public criticism of CPS efforts, continued frustration by CPS staff and child welfare workers, and continued abuse and neglect, and death, of our Nation's children, served as the backdrop as we sought to draft a CAPTA reauthorization bill this year. The Child Protection System mission must focus on the safety of children. To ensure that the system works as intended, CPS needs to be appropriately staffed. The staff need to receive appropriate training and cross-training to better recognize substance abuse and domestic violence problems. Triage can help in communities with numerous abuse reports so that those reports where children are most at-risk of imminent harm can be prioritized. More collaborations in communities between CPS, health agencies, including mental health agencies, schools, and community-based groups can help to strengthen families. Prevention programs and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect for families at-risk can improve the likelihood that a child will grow up in a home without violence, abuse, or neglect. Beyond the CAPTA title of this legislation, our bill reauthorizes the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, including the creation of a new program to address the needs of children who witness domestic violence, the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. There is not much time before Congress adjourns for the session. And there are many outstanding issues for Congress to address. Child protection ought not be a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and to strengthen child protection laws before we adjourn for the year. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record, followed by the text of the bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I apologize. I was not able to be here this morning when the Senators expressed their words and thoughts about our wonderful colleague, Strom Thurmond, who is retiring from the Senate this year. I wanted to join in the particular tribute in saying to him and the people of South Carolina and the rest of our colleagues something we all feel, regardless of the disagreements we may have had on substantive policy matters, Strom Thurmond is truly an American institution in many ways. I cannot even begin to imagine the U.S. Senate without this remarkable individual in our presence. For nearly 50 years--almost a quarter of the life of this country--through 10 Presidential administrations, Strom Thurmond has been an institution in the Chamber of the Senate. Eight Senators serving today were not yet born when Strom Thurmond was first elected to the Senate in 1954. It is not the fact that Senator Thurmond has served the Senate longer than any other Senator in our Nation's history that makes him unique. It has been, in my view, Strom Thurmond's fascinating journey through life that makes him unique. His story is truly a unique American story. In the course of his nearly 100 years, Strom Thurmond has been a teacher, judge, combat hero, Governor, winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and, of course, a Senator. In more than 20 years of our serving together, I have not always agreed with Senator Thurmond, as I know many of my colleagues have not over the years, but he has always been a true embodiment of the ``way of the Senate,''--always thoughtful, always respectful, and always deliberative. In short, he has been a great Senate colleague. My father, Senator Thomas Dodd, served with Senator Thurmond for 12 years. I have served with him for 20. That is 32 of his almost 50 years. They, too, had their differences, but they had tremendous respect for one another and were very good friends. My family will always think of Strom Thurmond not simply as a friend but as a loyal friend to the Dodd family. I believe that no matter what your ideology or political persuasion, one cannot look upon the life of Strom Thurmond without concluding that it is in so many ways so remarkable. What else can you say about a man who, at the age of 42, took a leave of absence as a Circuit Judge in South Carolina to volunteer to parachute behind enemy lines with the 82nd Airborne Division during the Normandy D-Day invasion, for which he was awarded 5 Battle Stars for Bravery in Combat? What else can you say about a man who has dedicated his entire life to public service, to the service of his country? While never neglecting to be a stalwart in support of the state and people of his beloved South Carolina, there are literally dozens upon dozens of schools, buildings, parks, and streets in South Carolina named after their senior Senator. Senator Strom Thurmond has never failed to put America first. He has always treated public service to America as a sacred responsibility. In this respect, Strom Thurmond is a very, very rare breed. Senator Thurmond was born at the dawn of the 20th century, born to a very different time; to a very different America. Over the past century, America has grown as a Nation. Over the past century, America has become a more free, a more fair, and a more compassionate nation. And, over the past century, Senator Thurmond has also grown. Senator Thurmond once said, ``People evolve. They reach a higher truth in life.'' Strom Thurmond lived through the entire 20th century, a century which began with two world wars and ended with a triumph of democracy. It was a century of enormous political and social upheaval, but it was also a century of enormous progress and enlightenment. Strom Thurmond was not just witness to the entire 20th century, he was a full participant. His journey mirrored America's journey. And now, at the dawn of a new century, Strom Thurmond is still a participant in America's journey. In closing I would just like to tell Strom Thurmond that his lifetime of service to his country, and his nearly 50 years in the United States Senate, is greatly appreciated, and will be sorely missed. Strom, it is an honor and a privilege working with you, and I will miss you very, very much.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will keep an eye on the door. If our friend from Arizona comes through the door, I will abbreviate my remarks. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. DODD. I see my colleague from Arizona on the floor. I know he wishes to be heard on this amendment. I yield the floor to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Does this require a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DODD. This debate would end at 4:30; is that right?