Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. Let me begin by stating that which I have said on several occasions: We are all deeply indebted to the Senator from Maryland for the tremendous work he has done as the chairman of the Banking Committee in fashioning this legislation. He has worked with many of us to put this bill together. My guess is that, within an hour or so, we will overwhelmingly pass this bill before us. The chairman will be largely responsible for the result. I also commend my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, and others who have worked very hard and have made it a bipartisan bill. Without his leadership, I don't think that would have happened. We may have had a partisan vote coming out of committee. That would not have bode well for the handling of this matter on the floor. So I commend him and others for reaching an accommodation that made this a strong, good bill. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes toward the close of this debate to urge our colleagues to be supportive of this bill, and I hope Members of the other body will support what we have done in the Senate. The House passed legislation a number of weeks ago, prior to a lot of the events that have unfolded over the last 2 or 3 weeks. The argument today for a stronger Senate bill hardly needs to be made in light of events that occurred over the past number of days. Just today, the Dow is down some 40 points; Nasdaq is even. But over the last week, we have seen a continued decline in investor confidence and, of course, how that is reflected in the stock markets. Investors, both domestic and foreign, are losing confidence in our financial markets. Investor trust is contagious. I also point out the corollary to that: Investor mistrust is also contagious. What we are watching is an erosion of trust that has begun and is almost impossible to stop once it gets rolling. Obviously, a lot of factors will contribute to stemming this tide of continued erosion of investor trust and confidence. One of the things we can do is what we are doing today. Other people will have to add their voices to the debate. In my view, the President still has to be stronger than he has been. The House will have to rise to the occasion as we have endorsed in large measure what we have accomplished here, but our step, the first step, is the one we are taking this afternoon. Therefore, I think this is critically important. This is not just another bill we are passing. This is far more important. In fact, the impact of how people react may be more important than the actual wording and language of the bill. It is critically important we have as strong a vote as possible. If we fail to enact serious reforms--and this bill is serious reform--then I believe we endorse dangerous and discredited accounting practices that we have seen in the last 7 months alone cost shareholders and workers billions of dollars in their savings and pensions. The Nasdaq has fallen over 37 percent, and the Dow has fallen 17 percent since the beginning of the year. Both Nasdaq and the Dow have dropped over 10 percent each in the past week alone. So Congress must act today, Mr. President, and act with a very strong voice to stem the rising tide of investor apprehension. Passage of this bill will not and cannot of itself restore investor confidence. More must be done to win back consumer faith, but this bill is a critical piece of the overall effort and, therefore, it is essentially important we adopt it. The part of the rationale of the original securities law in the 1930s was to increase public trust in America's financial markets and reliability of disclosed corporate financial information. Those laws over the past 70-plus years were a part of the modern economic foundation of our Nation, and they were designed to promote market efficiency and inspire investor confidence. The resulting market confidence in the statements of financial health of publicly traded companies has paved the way for America's rise as an economic superpower. I could make a strong case that the vote we are going to take today is for one of the most important bills impacting the Nation's financial markets since the 1930s. I say that because this legislation will fundamentally change the way publicly traded companies will do business and how the accounting profession performs its statutorily required audit function. Much has been said about what this legislation does not accomplish. Briefly, I wish to focus my remarks on what it does do and repeat, we are not solving every problem with this bill. There are a lot of other issues that need to be addressed, but we have to begin the process, it seems to me, by getting the accounting part of this equation right, and we will not know ultimately whether we have done all we could, but I think this is a major step in that direction. The bill, we now know, creates a new independent regulator for the accounting profession. The new body will act as a strong, independent, full-time board with significant authority to regulate auditors of public companies. The independent board will have clear authority for setting auditor standards and important investigative standards. It strengthens audit reporting standards for the accounting profession and contains significant prohibitions for accountants performing nonaudit services for audit clients, and it addresses the growing conflicts of interest that have been too pervasive throughout the accounting profession. It provides for the first time an independent funding source for the Financial Standards Accounting Board, which I think is also extremely important and one of the major reforms in this bill. There are additional dollars to provide the SEC with more firepower, if you will, to have more cops on the street so we might avoid some of the problems that have occurred in the past. It also improves corporate governance requirements and improves corporate disclosures. The bill grants additional authority and responsibility to the audit committees of publicly traded companies. Those are very important steps. The provisions contained in the legislation were carefully considered. We had 10 hearings, and by a vote of 17 to 4, the committee--the Presiding Officer being one--passed out this very fine legislation. Additionally, during floor consideration of this bill, Senator Leahy of Vermont added new criminal penalties for securities fraud. I commend him and strongly endorse the provision that won the overwhelming support of the Members. I hope it will add to our efforts of restoring investor confidence. One of the last issues I would like to address, because it has been talked about so much, is the stock options issue, which involved a lot of debate and discussion of the last number of days. I commend our colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, who has made an extraordinary effort to find a resolution to this issue we all can support. Obviously, this question inspires more questions than answers in many ways, but I commend him for his thoughtfulness and energy that he has brought to this debate. The issue of whether or not stock options should be expensed is not an issue that is going to go away. It has to be addressed. I must admit, I am swayed by those who have a great deal of expertise in this area: Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffett, Paul Volcker, all of whom support the expensing of stock options. I also recognize the danger when Congress begins the process of legislating accounting standards. My friend from Texas and I have been involved in the past when there have been efforts by people who wanted to have us vote on some of these matters. I recall 3 or 4 years ago the debate was over pooling and purchasing accounting standards. I was very sympathetic to the arguments made by those advocating pooling. Certainly, if I were a member of FASB, I think I would have voted to allow that accounting standard to go forward, but the idea that the Senate might vote by 51 to 49 to pick one accounting standard over another is just ludicrous on its face. We do not want to set a precedent, in my view, of the Congress of the United States deciding what accounting practices ought to be. That is why we set up these boards to do the job. The approach taken by having the Accounting Standards Board, the SEC, and others look at these matters and get back to us with their recommendations is the appropriate and proper way to go. Despite the temptation of others to want to legislate these matters explicitly on the floor, I remind my colleagues who have done that in the past, we inevitably regret doing it when we set precedents such as those and are only duplicated by other ideas that temporarily may be very popular, may be politically attractive, but may be terrible economics as well. I applaud the effort to approach the stock option issue in the manner in which it has been addressed. I mentioned Senator Enzi. I mentioned my colleague from Texas as well. He and I worked many years on a lot of matters affecting the financial services sector of our economy. He does not have that many days left with us, and I am going to miss him. I told him that privately, and I tell him publicly that he is a valued Member of this institution. Whether we agree or disagree on matters he always brings a great deal of thought to the debate. He has been a fine member of the Banking Committee, and I have enjoyed my service with him for many years. I do not want to be too complimentary. I will reserve any final glowing accolades for when we have completed the process. We have a conference to go through yet. Again, my compliments to Senator Sarbanes. What we are doing is important. This is extremely important legislation. I said earlier it may be more important what message it is we are sending; that we are not sitting in the bleachers, we are not just standing by as these events unfold. All Members of this Chamber can take great pride that the Senate of the United States has responded with a responsible bill we think is going to make a difference. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Missouri for this very fine amendment. I think it is going to make a strong difference by improving electronic reporting. It doesn't get the kind of attention it should. This is a positive and constructive suggestion. I am a cosponsor of the amendment and commend the distinguished Senator from Missouri for offering the amendment. It makes the bill stronger. It is something all our colleagues will be willing to support. I commend the Senator for her work. Amendment No. 4215, As Modified

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask to be heard on the Carnahan amendment very briefly. Does the Senator mind?

Mr. DODD. Two minutes or so.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate that.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to recognize the outstanding contributions of The Company of Fifers and Drummers to the people of Connecticut and beyond. The largest organization of its kind in the Western world, The Company has both increased awareness of fife and drum history and fostered communication amongst corps worldwide. I would like to take the opportunity to commend its hard work and numerous achievements over the years. Rooted in early American musical tradition, The Company of Fifers and Drummers is a nonprofit organization founded in 1965. The historical significance of The Company is evidenced through the early establishment of various corps dating back to the 1760s and 1800s. Throughout its existence, The Company has broadened corps membership beyond Connecticut and New England to include an impressive 150 corps worldwide, including corps in Europe and along the Pacific coast. In addition to showcasing fife and drum music and history, The Company organizes all activities for member corps, both inside and outside the United States. The efforts of The Company of Fifers and Drummers extends far beyond musical events and fellowship. The commitment of this organization to the art of fife and drum is also evidenced through its creation of the Museum of Fife and Drum in Ivoryton, CT. Since 1987, the museum has serviced the community by providing access to artifacts, including eighteenth and nineteenth century instruments and uniforms, a music and video library, as well as an extensive archives. The Company is certainly worthy of praise for its efforts in maintaining the only museum devoted to fife and drum to date. As the fife and drum first appeared in the early colonies, The Company of Fifers and Drummers is a reminder of the importance of our history as Americans. While the drum arrived in America with the first English settlers, the fife was introduced in the colonies during the French and Indian War. By 1775, the year of the Lexington Alarm, most colonial regiments were comprised of fifers and drummers. The spirit of patriotism rooted in the Company is a great example for all Americans. I am proud to honor The Company of Fifers and Drummers for its remarkable service and accomplishments over the past 30 years. My experience with The Company, most recently at the Eight Mile River Dedication Ceremony in East Haddam, CT, has proved both enlightening and inspiring. I wish to show my appreciation for its outstanding contributions to society, and I wish The Company continued success in the future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am prepared to vote in support of S.J. Res. 34 which approves the site at Yucca Mountain for the development of a repository for spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, but I do so with great caution. The vote we cast today does not give carte blanche to move this waste. Instead, it signals a continuation of a process begun in Congress more than two decades ago. The risks are not insignificant and in the coming months and years many steps must be satisfied and many scientific tests undertaken before a license is issued by the Nuclear Regulator Commission and a single shipment of waste is moved. In addition, there must be open dialogue among industry, organizations, transportation experts, and government entities at the Federal, State, and local level to determine a safe and workable transportation system. If the ongoing scientific, environmental, or public safety tests are not satisfactory, or a transportation system is deemed unworkable, then the site should not be licensed. For Congress to stop the process today with no viable, permanent alternative solution on the table is short-sighted and wrong. I recognize the limitations on the amount of waste that Yucca Mountain can accept and the length of time it will take to transport the waste. I further understand that some waste will necessarily remain on site at individual facilities even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, as nuclear reactors continue to operate and generate waste. But to keep all of the current and future waste on-site at approximately 100 sites in above ground storage is not a prudent long- term solution. In fact, many facilities will be reaching their storage capacity long before their licenses expire. For these reasons, while we continue to move forward with Yucca Mountain, we must also step up our security at all the nuclear facilities sites around the country. If all systems are a go with Yucca, it will be at least 10 years before any waste is moved. My record is clear. I have supported nuclear power and the obligation of the Federal Government to take responsibility for nuclear waste. I am one of a handful of current Senators who was here in 1982 to vote on the National Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I supported that initiative and again in 1987, I supported amendments to the 1982 act which singled out Yucca Mountain to be examined as a nuclear waste repository. However, I have voted against both the idea of interim, above ground consolidated storage and moving forward with the process before the Secretary of Energy formally recommended Yucca Mountain. No one knows the costs and benefits of nuclear energy more than the residents of my State. Connecticut has two operating nuclear facilities and two permanently shut down facilities that are undergoing decommissioning. Nuclear energy provides more than 45 percent of the electricity generated in Connecticut. Only Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Illinois and South Carolina have a larger percentage of electricity generated by nuclear power. It is a fact that while I have supported nuclear power, I have also been one of its most vocal critics when I believed the industry and oversight agencies failed to exercise appropriate controls over the facilities in my State. I have also been a champion of the need for alternative energy sources, including renewables, to meet our growing energy needs and offset our dependance on energy sources that generate waste, pollute our environment and cause public health concerns. I applaud people, including many of my colleagues, who champion these issues, drive fuel efficient and cleaner burning automobiles, and make personal choices to use alternative energy sources in their daily lives. We will be judged by future generations not only by the decisions we make in the coming months and years regarding nuclear waste, but also by the bold choices we make regarding our future energy security and the health and welfare of our planet. This is not a perfect solution, but a reasonable step if the risks can be managed. I hope that it will be looked upon as such in years to come. Having said that, while I support the substance of this resolution, I voted against the motion to proceed. As chairman of the Rules Committee, I take the rules of the Senate very seriously. It is my belief that despite what may have been written into the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and 1987, I believe it is the fundamental prerogative of the Majority Leader to set the agenda of the Senate. My understanding is that at no time in the recent history of the Senate has that prerogative been violated. Moreover, I fail to see why my colleagues felt the need to violate that prerogative today. There are still more than 2 weeks to bring this matter to the floor under established practices of the Senate. Furthermore, it is worth noting that this matter was brought up by the minority during the middle of a very important debate to address wrongdoings and shortcomings in the accounting industry and corporate sector. I want to make this very clear, my vote against the motion to proceed was not against S.J. Resolution 34, but out of respect for the practices and prerogatives of the Senate. If there had been a recorded vote on S.J. Res. 34, I would have voted aye.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If the Senator from Texas were interested in creating a sense of uniformity, I could see him offering an amendment--I wouldn't agree with it--which would require that all businesses that are conducting their operations for profit be subjected to an accounting standard that was equal. Again, my friend from Wyoming would strenuously object to such an amendment. I would as well because of the reasons that smaller companies just could not possibly afford the costs associated with that. But to suggest somehow that a nonprofit organization ought to be subjected to the same rules as a for-profit public company where shareholders and so forth are involved is stretching logic. I appreciate my colleague yielding.

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

Mr. DODD. It occurs to me as well, in this bill, we are not requiring for all businesses these requirements. These are for businesses that have to file with the SEC.

Mr. DODD. It is a limited universe. My point is, we are not talking about every entity that conducts business for profit. We excluded the overwhelming majority of businesses that are private entities, that have no filing requirements with the SEC. Our colleague from Wyoming felt very strongly about this point, that we only deal with public companies, the 16,000 public companies. Let me ask my colleague this question: Is a labor union a for-profit business or are they a different kind of an entity? I have always understood a labor union was not a business and therefore to require of the labor union that which we require of a for-profit company that is required to file with the SEC seems to be mixing apples and oranges. There is no parallelism here at all.

Mr. DODD. Correct.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks by commending the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee. I have said on other occasions and in other places that for students of the Congress who wish to find a good example of how to prepare a committee and ultimately the Chamber for a moment such as this, a good model to use would be the hearings conducted by the chairman of the committee on this very question. There were 10 hearings--there may have been more, certainly 10 full hearings--to which were invited virtually everyone from across the spectrum on this question. This was hardly a set of hearings where we heard from one side. We literally invited the best experts in the country; they came and shared with us their views and thoughts on what sort of steps we should be taking to reform the accounting profession, to reform the rules affecting the accounting profession. I begin by extending my compliments to the chairman and his staff for the tremendous job done to lay the groundwork. Oftentimes we will see, particularly in light of a crisis that occurs, there is a rush to judgment. We will come very quickly to the floor with a sort of a cut- and-paste job with the legislation. I am not suggesting intentions are not good, but that is oftentimes how we react. This set of hearings did, very deliberately, with a great deal of patience and thought, lay out the foundation for the legislation now before the Senate. Certainly, while there will be ideas offered to improve the legislation, we think the committee has produced a very fine product. The best evidence of that is the fact that 17 of us in the committee found this proposal to be worthy of our support. There were four dissenters. I think even among dissenters, there was a sense that we were heading in the right direction. Some may have fundamentally disagreed, but if there were one in the four, I don't know which one it would have been. Most thought we were doing the right thing, either that we went a little too far or didn't go far enough possibly, but this is a very balanced approach. I urge our colleagues to be careful of two potential actions in the coming days. One would be to dilute this product in some way. We are not suggesting we have written perfection here, but we think this is a well-balanced proposal. Senator Sarbanes has worked closely with our colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, who is the only Member of this body who is actually a former member of the accounting profession. He brings a wealth of personal knowledge and awareness to the issue. He worked very closely with him and other members of the minority, as well as with those of us on the majority side, to finally bring this product to the Chamber. It already has involved some compromise. At this hour, when investor confidence is going to be absolutely critical and the steps that we take and the language we use will in no small measure contribute to the restoration of confidence, it can just as easily do the opposite, if we are not careful. This is a critical moment in the economic history of our country. The steps taken by those who are in significant positions to affect the outcome of the course we are on are going to be critically important. The second caution I express is that we don't try to also overburden this bill to say that this is the only opportunity for us to deal with every other issue affecting corporate business life in America. I am not suggesting the ideas Members will want to bring to the table are bad. But we can so load down a good bill that we can sink this effort if we are not careful. I urge my colleagues as well to be restrained in the temptation to bring up every other idea and incorporate it as part of an accounting reform proposal. Those are the two cautionary notes I have. Let me also add my voice to those who have expressed theirs earlier today. Tomorrow I know the President of the United States is going to give a very important speech on Wall Street in New York, the financial capital of our country. I commend him for doing so. I think it is extremely important that he actually go to Wall Street to share his views. My hope would be that this evening, as he makes the final preparations for his remarks, he would come out four square and endorse this proposal that we have brought out of our committee by a vote of 17 to 4. I can't think of anything more the President could do in the next 24 hours, aside from the rhetoric he will offer, than to endorse this bill and to say this was a good effort and to talk about the laborious hearings we have held to learn exactly what was necessary to incorporate in this legislation. Lastly, I would hope we would get this bill done fairly soon and not let this go on too long. We would love to be able to not only finish our work here but to go to conference with the House, which has another proposal. It is a weaker proposal, in my view, but nonetheless we will have to work with them to resolve our differences and to send a bill to the President for his signature. I would hope that before we leave for our August break less than 3 weeks from today we would actually be able to give to the President a bill for his signature and not let it drag on over into September and October. It is important we act in a timely fashion. With those background thoughts, I would like to share some general comments about the bill itself. The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. Anyone who has read a paper or turned on the news or flipped on their computer is aware of the crisis in our financial markets and, in fact, beyond that, in our Nation. No rule or regulation is enough to address this fundamental problem. The issue causing all of this turmoil is about the simple word of ``trust.'' The question that the world is asking is not whether our companies or corporations or the workers who toil in them or the products and services are competitive, but simply whether we are telling the truth. Are we telling the truth? The reason people of the world so often have come here and invested their hard-earned resources is not because there is a better deal to be made financially speaking. It is because there is a sense that our structures are sound, transparent, and they are fair. You may end up losing your investment; you may make money on your investment. That is always a risk when you make a financial investment. But the one thing you could always say about the United States, as opposed to almost any other place around the globe, is that when you come to America and invest your money, there is a sense of fairness and trust and soundness to our financial institutions and the structures that we created to protect them. That trust has been fractured by the events that have occurred over the last 9 months, And it continues to be fractured with daily reports. So it is vitally important that we respond in an appropriate and thoughtful manner as the Congress of the United States. We have done so, in my view, with the proposal the chairman has brought to our attention. The very integrity of our markets is being questioned, and the Congress must respond cautiously, prudently, and also expeditiously. Enron's collapse in December was, of course, an enormous shock to all of us. Seven or eight months later, we have seen that Enron was not an isolated incident. There have been a whole host of corporate accounting scandals and collapses--names such as WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Adelphia, the list goes on and on. I fear, as my colleagues do, that the latest corporate accounting scandal with WorldCom will not be the last. I hope it will be, but my fear is it will not be. The Congress should address the critical issue of accounting reforms as quickly as we can. America's financial engine does not need a tuneup, it needs an overhaul. We must disassemble it in some ways, examine every nut, bolt, and working part, and reassemble it to reflect the days in which we live. The fact is, if we fail to act on serious reforms, America will see a continuation of the dangerous and discredited corporate accounting practices that have, in the past 7 months alone, cost American shareholders and workers billions of dollars in their savings and pensions. This has deeply shaken investor confidence, and that serves as a cornerstone of our economic system. It is important to note that in the dozens of hearings surrounding Enron's collapse, no committee has engaged in a more nonpartisan examination, focused not just on what went wrong with Enron but, far more important, what Congress can do to prevent future Enrons from occurring in the days ahead. On March 8 of this year, Senator Jon Corzine and I introduced legislation, S. 2004, that addressed what we thought were some of the tough issues on improving regulatory oversight of the accounting profession and restoring investor confidence. I worked closely with the chairman, as did Senator Corzine, to incorporate some of the language and spirit of S. 2004 in the legislation before us today. I thank the chairman for including in the product before us much of what we wrote in S. 2004. I thank his staff, and I also thank my colleague from Wyoming. Congress must act quickly. If nothing else, we must address the most prominent cause of the recent corporate scandals, the practices inherent and common to the accounting profession, and particularly the ability to audit a company's books while simultaneously providing other services to that same corporation. We saw this with Enron and Andersen. Now we see it with WorldCom and the pending investigations that have greatly contributed to the public's loss of confidence in our financial marketplace. Since the beginning of the year, while our economy has been rebounding from last year's economic downturn and most economic indicators point to a bull market, the Nasdaq is down more than 20 percent, the Dow is down more than 3 percent, and trading volume has declined. One reason may be investor skepticism that companies are not as financially healthy as they have said they were. More restatements on corporate earnings have been filed in the past 7 months than in the last 10 years combined. Most of these restatements dramatically downgrade the financial health of the companies in question. Not surprisingly, the public is quickly losing trust in disclosed corporate financial information. Although the investing public may be reacting to the bad behavior of a few, the possibility of conflicts of interest between accounting firms and the companies they audit creates a perception that this aggressive accounting is commonplace, even when it may not be. This perception, which takes on its own sense of reality, has led to a very dangerous, least-common-denominator thinking in which the estimated worth of all public companies may become undervalued because some are proven to be seriously overvalued. The fact is, a few key reforms included in this bill can go a very long way toward shoring up the public's confidence in the integrity of America's financial marketplace. Most importantly, to enhance auditor independence, the legislation restricts the ability of accounting firms to audit a company's books while simultaneously providing other services. It also addresses the revolving door through which executives from one firm leave to work for the companies they audit. This reform legislation includes the creation of an independent body to oversee the accounting profession, with substantial authority to ensure auditor discipline and improve audit quality. The Securities and Exchange Commission will also be given the resources to hire more accounting ``cops'' to handle increasingly complex oversight responsibilities and improve the agency's investigative and disciplinary capabilities. The Government must be able to assure the public that audits meet the high standards of independence and objectivity that have been the hallmark of America's accounting profession. The accounting profession is a great profession. There are thousands of highly qualified, talented, ethical people in the accounting profession. I feel for them at this hour. Because of the malfeasance and fraud committed by some, the many who work in this profession feel tainted by it. I regret that. The best way I know to recover the confidence people have in this profession is to provide some regulatory framework that would allow for auditor independence and for professionalism to be restored at a time when it has been so badly damaged. Investors are depending upon us to act on this issue and set aside partisan conflicts. As I said, we should not dilute this legislation and make it far less important, less meaningful, or overburden it by trying to add too much to the bill. It is not an easy path to walk down. I urge my colleagues to listen to those of us who worked on this bill, particularly the chairman, as we try to balance the particular needs of our members and the desire to come up with a good, competent, bipartisan piece of legislation. This is not an easy path to walk down, but it is critically important if we are going to contribute to the restoration of investor confidence as part of our responsibilities as members of this historic Chamber. The purpose of the original securities laws of the 1930s was to increase public trust in America's financial markets, the reliability of disclosed corporate financial information. The resulting openness and accuracy of corporate disclosures to the investing public paved the very way for America's rise as the unrivaled economic superpower that we had achieved. The collapses of Enron, WorldCom, and other corporations, and the accounting scandals have ended any question about whether these laws need reexamination. They do. We know that reforms are mostly needed to protect and strengthen the public trust in America's financial markets, and the time to enact them is now. I am confident and hopeful that we will do just that in the ensuing days. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, and I introduced legislation to provide greater safety for children and adults who ride horses in the United States. Each year in our country, nearly 15 million people go horseback riding. Whether it be professionally or for pleasure, Americans of all ages and from all walks of life enjoy equestrian sports. And, while everyone acknowledges that horseback riding is a high-risk activity, there are serious safety issues related to equestrian sports that can and should be addressed. I first became aware of the problem of equestrian helmets when Kemi O'Donnell, a constituent of mine in Connecticut, called my office to relate her family's tragic experience. The story she shared opened my eyes to the danger posed by certain equestrian helmets. In 1998, Kemi's daughter, Christen O'Donnell, was a young 12-year-old resident of Darien, Connecticut, and a 7th grader at New Canaan Country School. Active and sporty, Christen was a talented intermediate rider who had five years of riding experience under her belt when she mounted her horse on the morning of August 11. As always, Christen wore a helmet and was accompanied by her trainer when she began a slow walk through the ring. Suddenly, without warning, the horse she was riding shook its head, and Christen was thrown off onto 4 inches of sand. Even though her horse was only at a walk, and Christen was wearing a helmet, that helmet offered her little protection, and she sustained severe head injuries as a result of the fall. She was rushed to Stamford hospital where, despite efforts to save her, she died the next day. The magnitude of their loss has been compounded by the thought that, had Christen been wearing a better constructed helmet, it is possible she could have survived this accident. My colleagues may be shocked to learn, as Christen's parents were, that there are no government standards in existence for the manufacturing of equestrian helmets. Some helmets are voluntarily constructed to meet strict American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) testing requirements, but the vast majority of helmets sold in the U.S. offer little or no real protection and are merely cosmetic hats--a form of apparel. Frequently, parents of young riders like Christen--and even more mature riders--do not know that they are buying an untested and unapproved item when they purchase a riding helmet. Indeed, most riders believe that when they buy a helmet at the store, they are purchasing a product that meets standards designed to provide real and adequate head protection. Bike helmets are built to minimum safety requirements, as are motorcycle helmets. Apparel helmets, like the one worn by Christen, offer little or no head protection, while ASTM-approved helmets are designed to significantly reduce head injury. The difference in aesthetic design between the two is minimal, but the underlying support structures of these types of helmet are substantial. ASTM-approved helmets offer a high degree of head protection, increase the survivability of equestrian accidents and, in my view, should be the standard for all equestrian helmets. This lack of adequate safety standards in riding helmets is why USA Equestrian (USAEq), one of the largest equestrian organizations in the country, recently mandated that ASTM-approved helmets must be worn in all USAEq-sanctioned events. While this decision effectively eliminates the danger posed by ``apparel helmets'' at these events, each day many more students ride in lessons and in private shows that are not USAEq- sanctioned. For their safety, I believe that Congress should establish minimum safety standards for all equestrian helmets sold in the United States, so that all riders can obtain headgear that offers actual protection against head injury. This is not an unprecedented suggestion. As I stated before, Congress has already acted to similarly ensure the safety of bike helmets. The legislation that I and Senator Chafee introduce in Christen's memory today is modeled on this successful bike helmet law and would go a long way toward reducing the mortality of equestrian accidents. The Christen O'Donnell Equestrian Helmet Safety Act would require that the Consumer Product Safety Commission establish minimum requirements, based on the already proven ASTM standard, for all equestrian helmets in the United States. Thus, there would be a uniform standard for all equestrian helmets, and riders could be confident that the helmet they buy offers real head protection. Let me be clear. This modest legislation does not mandate that riders wear helmets. That is a matter better left to individual states. But, it would take a significant step toward improving the survivability of equestrian accidents and would bring the United States in line with other industrialized countries with sizable riding populations. Countries like Australia and New Zealand have enacted similar safety legislation, and the European Union has set standards to make sure that helmets for equestrian activities meet continental standards. It is time for the United States to take similar steps. This bill is supported by a wide-ranging coalition of equestrian, child safety, and medical groups. This bill has received the endorsement of the National SAFEKIDS coalition, an organization dedicated to preventing accidental injury to children, and the Brain Trauma Foundation, a leading medical group dedicated to preventing and treating brain injury. Additionally, USAEq has passed a rule in support of the concept of the bill, requiring all children to wear ASTM approved helmets and strongly recommending that all adults do so as well. Further, in the Chronicle of the Horse, the trade publication for the Master of Foxhounds Association, the U.S. Equestrian Team, the U.S. Pony Clubs, The National Riding Commission, the Foxhound Club of North America, the National Beagle Club, the U.S. Dressage Foundation, the American Vaulting Association, and North American Riding for the Handicapped Association, and the Intercollegiate Horse Show Association, an article was published endorsing the ASTM rule. Given the wide range of organizations that endorse this bill, or have endorsed the ASTM rule, it is clear that riders, coaches, and medical professionals alike recognize the need for a standard, tested helmet design. I would like to draw my colleague's attention to some alarming statistics that further demonstrate the importance and expediency of this bill. Emergency rooms all across America have to deal with an influx of horse-related injuries each year. Nationwide in 1999, an estimated 15,000 horse-related emergency department visits were made by youths under 15 years old. Of these injuries, head injuries were by far the most numerous and accounted for around 60 percent of equestrian- related deaths. These injuries occurred, and continue to occur, at all ages and at all levels of riding experience. That an inadequately protected fall from a horse can kill is not surprising when you examine the medical statistics. A human skull can be shattered by an impact of less than 6.2 miles per hour, while horses can gallop at approximately 40 miles per hour. A fall from two feet can cause permanent brain damage, and a horse elevates a rider to eight feet or more above the ground. These statistics make it evident that horseback riding is a high-risk sport. While all riders acknowledge this fact, reducing the risk of serious injury while horseback riding is attainable through the use of appropriate head protection. We should pass this bill, and pass it soon, to ensure that head protection for equestrian events is safe and effective. American consumers deserve to be confident that their protective gear, should they choose to wear it, offers real protection. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, to introduce legislation to provide greater safety for children and adults who ride horses in the United States. Each year in our country, nearly 15 million people go horseback riding. Whether it be professionally or for pleasure, Americans of all ages and from all walks of life enjoy equestrian sports. And, while everyone acknowledges that horseback riding is a high-risk activity, there are serious issues related to equestrian sports that can and should be addressed. I first became aware of the problem of equestrian helmets when Kemi O'Donnell, a constituent of mine in Connecticut, called by office to relate her family's tragic experience. The story she shared opened my eyes to the danger posed by certain equestrian helmets. In 1998 Kemi's daughter, Christen O'Donnell, was a young 12-year-old resident of Darien, CT, and a 7th-grader at New Canaan Country School. Active and sporty, Christen was a talented intermediate rider who had 5 years or riding experience under her belt when she mounted her horse on the morning of August 11. As always, Christen wore a helmet and was accompanied by here trainer when she began a slow walk through the ring. Suddenly, without warning, the horse she was riding shook its head, and Christen was thrown off onto 4 inches of sand. Even though her horse was only at a walk, and Christen was wearing a helmet, that helmet offered her little protection, and she sustained severe head injuries as a result of the fall. She was rushed to Stamford hospital where, despite efforts to save here, she died the next day. The magnitude of their loss has been compounded by the thought that, had Christen been wearing a better constructed helmet, it is possible she could have survived this accident. My colleagues may be shocked to learn, as Christen's parents were, that there are no government standards in existence for the manufacturing of equestrian helmets. Some helmets are voluntarily constructed to meet strict American Society of Testing and Materials, ASTM, testing requirements, but the vast majority of helmets sold in the United States offer little or no real protection and are merely cosmetic hat, a form of apparel. Frequently, parents of young riders like Christen, and even more mature riders, do not know that they are buying an untested and unapproved item when they purchase a riding helmet. Indeed, most riders believe that when they buy a helmet at the store, they are purchasing a product that meets standards designed to provide real and adequate head protection. Bike helmets are built to minimum safety requirements, as are motorcycle helmets. Apparel helmets, like the one worn by Christen, offer little or no head protection, while ASTM-approved helmets are designed to significantly reduce head injury. The difference in aesthetic design between the two is minimal, but the underlying support structures of these types of helmet are substantial. ASTM-approved helmets offer a high degree of head protection, increase the survivability of equestrian accidents and, in my view, should be the standard for all equestrian helmets. This lack of adequate safety standards in riding helmets is why USA Equestrian, (USAEq), one of the largest equestrian organizations in the country, recently mandated that ASTM- approved helmets must be worn in all USAEq-sanctioned events. While this decision effectively eliminates the danger posed by ``apparel helmets'' at these events, each day many more students ride in lessons and in private shows that are not USAEq-sanctioned. For their safety, I believe that Congress should establish minimum safety standards for all equestrian helmets sold in the United States, so that all riders can obtain headgear that offers actual protection against head injury. This not an unprecedented suggestion. As I stated before, Congress has already acted to similarly ensure the safety of bike helmets. The legislation that I and Senator Chafee introduce in Christen's memory today is modeled on this successful bike helmet law and would go a long way toward reducing the mortality of equestrian accidents. The Christen O'Donnell Equestrian Helmet Safety Act would require that the Consumer Product Safety Commission establish minimum requirements, based on the already proven ASTM standard, for all equestrian helmets in the United States. Thus, there would be a uniform standard for all equestrain helmets, and riders could be confident that the helmet they buy offers real head protection. Let me be clear. This modest legislation does not mandate that riders wear helmets. That is a matter better left to individual States. But, it would take a significant step toward improving the survivability of equestrian accidents and would bring the United States in line with other industrialized countries with sizable riding populations. Countries like Australia and New Zealand have enacted similar helmet safety legislation, and the European Union has set standards to make sure that helmets for equestrian activities meet continental standards. It is time for the United States to take similar steps. This bill is supported by a wide-ranging coalition of equestrian, child safety, and medical groups. This bill has received the endorsement of USA Equestrian, one of the nation's largest equestrian groups, the National SAFEKIDS coalition, an organization dedicated to preventing accidental injury to children, and the Brain Trauma Foundation, a leading medical group dedicated to preventing and treating brain injury. Further, in the ``Chronicle of the Horse,'' the trade publication for the Masters of Foxhounds Association, the U.S. Equestrian Team, the U.S. Pony Clubs, the National Riding Commission, the Foxhound Club of North America, the National Beagle Club, the U.S. Dressage Foundation, the American Vaulting Association, the North American Riding for the Handicapped Association, and the Intercollegiate Horse Show Association, an article was published endorsing the ASTM rule. Given the wide range of organizations that endorse this bill, or have endorsed the ASTM rule, it is clear that riders, coaches, and medical professionals alike recognize the need for a standard, tested helmet design. I would like to draw my colleague's attention to some alarming statistics that further demonstrate the importance and expediency of this bill. Emergency rooms all across America have to deal with an influx of horse-related injuries each year. Nationwide in 1999, an estimated 15,000 horse-related emergency department visits were made by youths under 15 years old. Of these injuries, head injuries were by far the most numerous and accounted for around 60 percent of equestrian- related deaths. These injuries occurred, and continue to occur, at all ages and at all levels of riding experience. That an inadequately protected fall from a horse can kill is not surprising when you examine the medical statistics. A human skull can be shattered by an impact of less than 6.2 miles per hour, while horse can gallop at approximately 40 miles per hour. A fall from two feet can cause permanent brain damage, and a horse elevates a rider to eight feet or more above the ground. These statistics make it evident that horseback riding is a high-risk sport. While all riders acknowledge this fact, reducing the risk of serious injury while horseback riding is attainable through the use of appropriate head protection. We should pass this bill, and pass it soon, to ensure that head protection for equestrian events is safe and effective. American consumers deserve to be confident that their protective gear, should they choose to wear it, offers real protection. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, to introduce legislation to provide greater safety for children and adults who ride horses in the United States. Each year in our country, nearly 15 million people go horseback riding. Whether it be professionally or for pleasure, Americans of all ages and from all walks of life enjoy equestrian sports. And, while everyone acknowledges that horseback riding is a high-risk activity, there are serious issues related to equestrian sports that can and should be addressed. I first became aware of the problem of equestrian helmets when Kemi O'Donnell, a constituent of mine in Connecticut, called by office to relate her family's tragic experience. The story she shared opened my eyes to the danger posed by certain equestrian helmets. In 1998 Kemi's daughter, Christen O'Donnell, was a young 12-year-old resident of Darien, CT, and a 7th-grader at New Canaan Country School. Active and sporty, Christen was a talented intermediate rider who had 5 years or riding experience under her belt when she mounted her horse on the morning of August 11. As always, Christen wore a helmet and was accompanied by here trainer when she began a slow walk through the ring. Suddenly, without warning, the horse she was riding shook its head, and Christen was thrown off onto 4 inches of sand. Even though her horse was only at a walk, and Christen was wearing a helmet, that helmet offered her little protection, and she sustained severe head injuries as a result of the fall. She was rushed to Stamford hospital where, despite efforts to save here, she died the next day. The magnitude of their loss has been compounded by the thought that, had Christen been wearing a better constructed helmet, it is possible she could have survived this accident. My colleagues may be shocked to learn, as Christen's parents were, that there are no government standards in existence for the manufacturing of equestrian helmets. Some helmets are voluntarily constructed to meet strict American Society of Testing and Materials, ASTM, testing requirements, but the vast majority of helmets sold in the United States offer little or no real protection and are merely cosmetic hat, a form of apparel. Frequently, parents of young riders like Christen, and even more mature riders, do not know that they are buying an untested and unapproved item when they purchase a riding helmet. Indeed, most riders believe that when they buy a helmet at the store, they are purchasing a product that meets standards designed to provide real and adequate head protection. Bike helmets are built to minimum safety requirements, as are motorcycle helmets. Apparel helmets, like the one worn by Christen, offer little or no head protection, while ASTM-approved helmets are designed to significantly reduce head injury. The difference in aesthetic design between the two is minimal, but the underlying support structures of these types of helmet are substantial. ASTM-approved helmets offer a high degree of head protection, increase the survivability of equestrian accidents and, in my view, should be the standard for all equestrian helmets. This lack of adequate safety standards in riding helmets is why USA Equestrian, (USAEq), one of the largest equestrian organizations in the country, recently mandated that ASTM- approved helmets must be worn in all USAEq-sanctioned events. While this decision effectively eliminates the danger posed by ``apparel helmets'' at these events, each day many more students ride in lessons and in private shows that are not USAEq-sanctioned. For their safety, I believe that Congress should establish minimum safety standards for all equestrian helmets sold in the United States, so that all riders can obtain headgear that offers actual protection against head injury. This not an unprecedented suggestion. As I stated before, Congress has already acted to similarly ensure the safety of bike helmets. The legislation that I and Senator Chafee introduce in Christen's memory today is modeled on this successful bike helmet law and would go a long way toward reducing the mortality of equestrian accidents. The Christen O'Donnell Equestrian Helmet Safety Act would require that the Consumer Product Safety Commission establish minimum requirements, based on the already proven ASTM standard, for all equestrian helmets in the United States. Thus, there would be a uniform standard for all equestrain helmets, and riders could be confident that the helmet they buy offers real head protection. Let me be clear. This modest legislation does not mandate that riders wear helmets. That is a matter better left to individual States. But, it would take a significant step toward improving the survivability of equestrian accidents and would bring the United States in line with other industrialized countries with sizable riding populations. Countries like Australia and New Zealand have enacted similar helmet safety legislation, and the European Union has set standards to make sure that helmets for equestrian activities meet continental standards. It is time for the United States to take similar steps. This bill is supported by a wide-ranging coalition of equestrian, child safety, and medical groups. This bill has received the endorsement of USA Equestrian, one of the nation's largest equestrian groups, the National SAFEKIDS coalition, an organization dedicated to preventing accidental injury to children, and the Brain Trauma Foundation, a leading medical group dedicated to preventing and treating brain injury. Further, in the ``Chronicle of the Horse,'' the trade publication for the Masters of Foxhounds Association, the U.S. Equestrian Team, the U.S. Pony Clubs, the National Riding Commission, the Foxhound Club of North America, the National Beagle Club, the U.S. Dressage Foundation, the American Vaulting Association, the North American Riding for the Handicapped Association, and the Intercollegiate Horse Show Association, an article was published endorsing the ASTM rule. Given the wide range of organizations that endorse this bill, or have endorsed the ASTM rule, it is clear that riders, coaches, and medical professionals alike recognize the need for a standard, tested helmet design. I would like to draw my colleague's attention to some alarming statistics that further demonstrate the importance and expediency of this bill. Emergency rooms all across America have to deal with an influx of horse-related injuries each year. Nationwide in 1999, an estimated 15,000 horse-related emergency department visits were made by youths under 15 years old. Of these injuries, head injuries were by far the most numerous and accounted for around 60 percent of equestrian- related deaths. These injuries occurred, and continue to occur, at all ages and at all levels of riding experience. That an inadequately protected fall from a horse can kill is not surprising when you examine the medical statistics. A human skull can be shattered by an impact of less than 6.2 miles per hour, while horse can gallop at approximately 40 miles per hour. A fall from two feet can cause permanent brain damage, and a horse elevates a rider to eight feet or more above the ground. These statistics make it evident that horseback riding is a high-risk sport. While all riders acknowledge this fact, reducing the risk of serious injury while horseback riding is attainable through the use of appropriate head protection. We should pass this bill, and pass it soon, to ensure that head protection for equestrian events is safe and effective. American consumers deserve to be confident that their protective gear, should they choose to wear it, offers real protection. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. As I mentioned earlier, the House bill includes $9 million for this purpose. My understanding, however, is that at least $12 million in fiscal year 2003 funding is needed to fully accelerate this program.

Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate. This research area is important to the Navy and the defense of the United States. Technology being developed to support this capability is currently planned to be ready for transition to Navy aircraft in the fiscal year 2006 time frame, but can be completed sooner with additional funding in fiscal year 2003. The House of Representatives included an additional $9 million for this purpose in its version of the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend for her support for this program. section 241

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act, a bill which I believe addresses the needs and challenges of the Peace Corps of today, and lays a path toward bringing this celebrated organization into its next 40 years. It was 41 years ago when President Kennedy laid out his vision for the future of American volunteer service. He spoke of a corps of committed and idealistic young volunteers, the Peace Corps, who would travel all over the world, ``promoting world peace and friendship.'' He saw public service as an ideal to transcend political rhetoric. Volunteers were not to reflect particular Republican or Democratic ideology, but rather their service would be a manifestation of the core American values we all share. Their principal objectives in this endeavor would be to help in the development and betterment of the countries and communities they serve, to foster a greater understanding of American values and culture abroad, and to likewise foster a greater appreciation of other peoples and cultures on the part of Americans. Four decades later, thousands upon thousands of Americans have volunteered for the Peace Corps and worked with diligence and compassion to achieve these aims. 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 two 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 two years were invaluable to me, and truly brought home to me the value of public service. Of course, my Peace Corps service was from 1966-1968, when it was a relatively new organization. Today, I am proud to note that the peace Corps now sends more than 7,000 volunteers to 76 different countries every year. This means that there are 7,000 important American liaisons scattered around the world helping people, promoting American values, and showing the world the best of America. After all, these volunteers are really the heart and soul of the Peace Corps. They are the ones on the front lines, working hard, making one-on-one connections with the citizens of the countries in which they work. For 41 years, they have brought a wealth of practical experience to communities in Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Pacific. Indeed, the enduring success of the Peace Corps is rooted in each volunteer's commitment to leave behind skills that allow people to take charge of their own futures. 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 of September 11, it has become something more. It has become a necessity. The terrorist attacks of last September 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 or unfriendly to 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. If we are to expand the aims of the Peace Corps, to broaden its scope, its charter, and to send our volunteers into more countries, then we must provide the Peace Corps with adequate resources to safely and effectively pursue these objectives. I believe that the legislation proposed in the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act will go a long way to meeting the Peace Corps' funding needs, as well as charting a course toward the future of this valuable organization. I would like to briefly outline the provisions included in ths bill, and explain to my colleagues why I feel its enactment is so important. First, my bill stresses the importance of maintaining the Peace Corps' independence from any political affiliation, party, government agency, or particular administration. This independence is critical to the continued success, credibility, and acceptance of the volunteers in the countries in which they serve. We must vigilantly preserve this success. Especially if we are to expand the number of countries now being served, and if we plan to send our volunteers into more countries with significant Muslim populations, we must make sure that the Peace Corps goals of friendship, peace, and grassroots development are in no way muddled or compromised by political objectives. As you may know, Congress has called for an expansion of the Peace Corps to include 10,000 volunteers, and the President has called for a doubling of current numbers over five years. While I applaud the enthusiasm inherent in these requests, we must not allow such an increase in quantity to in any way impinge on the quality of the Peace Corps experience, either for the volunteers themselves or the communities they serve. There are currently 7,000 volunteers abroad working under a budget of $275,000,000. Any expansion in staffing must include a commensurate increase in funding and support resources available to them. In fact, to better address the growing mandate and needs of the Peace Corps, this bill suggests the establishment of an Office of Strategic Planning, as well as a Peace Corps Advisory Council comprised of returned volunteers to coordinate existing programs and address long-term expansion plans. One of the most important parts of this bill, which I have already touched on here today, is the need to place a special emphasis on recruiting volunteers for placement in countries whose governments are seeking to foster a greater understanding by and about their citizens. There is to be a special authorization of funds for the purposes of this recruitment, as well as a report due on this subject from the Peace Corps Director within 60 days of the enactment of this legislation. This report will outline a strategy for increasing the Peace Corps presence in countries with substantial Muslim populations. We must find ways to engage with these countries, and to foster a more open interaction and understanding between our citizens. This bill also sets time line requirements and procedures for new initiatives from the Peace Corps Director. Essentially, this increases Congressional oversight of new projects, programs, or directives. It also requests a description from the Director of current loan forgiveness programs available to volunteers, and a comparison with other government-sponsored loan forgiveness programs. Another important provision in this legislation is the training mandated for volunteers in the areas of education, prevention, and treatment of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, so that they may better help fight these diseases in the communities in which they serve. This training, in cooperation with the centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, the Pan American Health Organization, and local health officials, will prepare volunteers to promote a better grassroots approach to public health, safety, and disease prevention. I also feel strongly, and this is also included in the bill, that we must utilize the insights and experience of returned volunteers to get them more involved in the promotion and support of Peace Corps programs. One way to do this is to provide federal grant monies to certain non-profits in the District of Columbia. These non-profits would be established for the express purpose of using the knowledge, experience, and expertise of returned volunteers to help carry out the goals of the Peace Corps. Returned volunteers are an amazing resource for the Peace Corps. They continue to make a difference here at home through their enduring community service, and their work to strengthen America's appreciation of other cultures. Together they are building a legacy of service for the next generation, and it is my hope that the appropriations included in this legislation, for non-profit grant monies, will provide them with yet another outlet for continued service. Finally, let me speak briefly to the funding level increases called for in this legislation. Over the next five years this bill calls for appropriations to be made in the following amounts: $465 million for fiscal year 2004, $500 million for fiscal year 2005, $560 million for fiscal year 2006, and $560 million for fiscal year 2007. In addition, and most importantly, this bill allows for additional appropriations to be made to address the specific funding needs of the Peace Corps as it seeks to increase volunteer strength. Again, we must not allow expansion to infringe on the quality of the Peace Corps experience. We must ensure that we adequately provide for our volunteers and equip them with sufficient resources to best assist the communities in which they serve. In conclusion, 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. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and the continued success of the Peace Corps. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act, a bill which I believe addresses the needs and challenges of the Peace Corps of today, and lays a path toward bringing this celebrated organization into its next 40 years. It was 41 years ago when President Kennedy laid out his vision for the future of American volunteer service. He spoke of a corps of committed and idealistic young volunteers, the Peace Corps, who would travel all over the world, ``promoting world peace and friendship.'' He saw public service as an ideal to transcend political rhetoric. Volunteers were not to reflect particular Republican or Democratic ideology, but rather their service would be a manifestation of the core American values we all share. Their principal objectives in this endeavor would be to help in the development and betterment of the countries and communities they serve, to foster a greater understanding of American values and culture abroad, and to likewise foster a greater appreciation of other peoples and cultures on the part of Americans. Four decades later, thousands upon thousands of Americans have volunteered for the Peace Corps and worked with diligence and compassion to achieve these aims. 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 two 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 two years were invaluable to me, and truly brought home to me the value of public service. Of course, my Peace Corps service was from 1966-1968, when it was a relatively new organization. Today, I am proud to note that the peace Corps now sends more than 7,000 volunteers to 76 different countries every year. This means that there are 7,000 important American liaisons scattered around the world helping people, promoting American values, and showing the world the best of America. After all, these volunteers are really the heart and soul of the Peace Corps. They are the ones on the front lines, working hard, making one-on-one connections with the citizens of the countries in which they work. For 41 years, they have brought a wealth of practical experience to communities in Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Pacific. Indeed, the enduring success of the Peace Corps is rooted in each volunteer's commitment to leave behind skills that allow people to take charge of their own futures. 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 of September 11, it has become something more. It has become a necessity. The terrorist attacks of last September 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 or unfriendly to 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. If we are to expand the aims of the Peace Corps, to broaden its scope, its charter, and to send our volunteers into more countries, then we must provide the Peace Corps with adequate resources to safely and effectively pursue these objectives. I believe that the legislation proposed in the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act will go a long way to meeting the Peace Corps' funding needs, as well as charting a course toward the future of this valuable organization. I would like to briefly outline the provisions included in ths bill, and explain to my colleagues why I feel its enactment is so important. First, my bill stresses the importance of maintaining the Peace Corps' independence from any political affiliation, party, government agency, or particular administration. This independence is critical to the continued success, credibility, and acceptance of the volunteers in the countries in which they serve. We must vigilantly preserve this success. Especially if we are to expand the number of countries now being served, and if we plan to send our volunteers into more countries with significant Muslim populations, we must make sure that the Peace Corps goals of friendship, peace, and grassroots development are in no way muddled or compromised by political objectives. As you may know, Congress has called for an expansion of the Peace Corps to include 10,000 volunteers, and the President has called for a doubling of current numbers over five years. While I applaud the enthusiasm inherent in these requests, we must not allow such an increase in quantity to in any way impinge on the quality of the Peace Corps experience, either for the volunteers themselves or the communities they serve. There are currently 7,000 volunteers abroad working under a budget of $275,000,000. Any expansion in staffing must include a commensurate increase in funding and support resources available to them. In fact, to better address the growing mandate and needs of the Peace Corps, this bill suggests the establishment of an Office of Strategic Planning, as well as a Peace Corps Advisory Council comprised of returned volunteers to coordinate existing programs and address long-term expansion plans. One of the most important parts of this bill, which I have already touched on here today, is the need to place a special emphasis on recruiting volunteers for placement in countries whose governments are seeking to foster a greater understanding by and about their citizens. There is to be a special authorization of funds for the purposes of this recruitment, as well as a report due on this subject from the Peace Corps Director within 60 days of the enactment of this legislation. This report will outline a strategy for increasing the Peace Corps presence in countries with substantial Muslim populations. We must find ways to engage with these countries, and to foster a more open interaction and understanding between our citizens. This bill also sets time line requirements and procedures for new initiatives from the Peace Corps Director. Essentially, this increases Congressional oversight of new projects, programs, or directives. It also requests a description from the Director of current loan forgiveness programs available to volunteers, and a comparison with other government-sponsored loan forgiveness programs. Another important provision in this legislation is the training mandated for volunteers in the areas of education, prevention, and treatment of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, so that they may better help fight these diseases in the communities in which they serve. This training, in cooperation with the centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, the Pan American Health Organization, and local health officials, will prepare volunteers to promote a better grassroots approach to public health, safety, and disease prevention. I also feel strongly, and this is also included in the bill, that we must utilize the insights and experience of returned volunteers to get them more involved in the promotion and support of Peace Corps programs. One way to do this is to provide federal grant monies to certain non-profits in the District of Columbia. These non-profits would be established for the express purpose of using the knowledge, experience, and expertise of returned volunteers to help carry out the goals of the Peace Corps. Returned volunteers are an amazing resource for the Peace Corps. They continue to make a difference here at home through their enduring community service, and their work to strengthen America's appreciation of other cultures. Together they are building a legacy of service for the next generation, and it is my hope that the appropriations included in this legislation, for non-profit grant monies, will provide them with yet another outlet for continued service. Finally, let me speak briefly to the funding level increases called for in this legislation. Over the next five years this bill calls for appropriations to be made in the following amounts: $465 million for fiscal year 2004, $500 million for fiscal year 2005, $560 million for fiscal year 2006, and $560 million for fiscal year 2007. In addition, and most importantly, this bill allows for additional appropriations to be made to address the specific funding needs of the Peace Corps as it seeks to increase volunteer strength. Again, we must not allow expansion to infringe on the quality of the Peace Corps experience. We must ensure that we adequately provide for our volunteers and equip them with sufficient resources to best assist the communities in which they serve. In conclusion, 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. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and the continued success of the Peace Corps. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following amendments; that the amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, without further intervening action or debate: amendments Nos. 3872, 3874 through 3879, 3881, 3883, 3884, 3885 through 3887, 3889, and 3890.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Specter amendment is not germane post cloture.

Mr. DODD. One of the guiding principles of this bill is that, to the extent possible, State insurance law should not be overridden. To that end, the bill respects the role of the State insurance commissioners as the appropriate regulators of policy terms and rates. Due to the urgency of the problems that currently exist in the marketplace for terrorism coverage, however, the bill requires that once the Federal program is in place, the States must allow rates for terrorism coverage to take effect immediately, without being subject to a preapproval requirement or a waiting period. The States would, of course, retain full authority to disapprove any rates that violate State laws, which are inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or excessive. I understand that my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, has some concerns about this provision and its effects. I appreciate her interest in this issue, and I want to assure my colleague that I will work with her as this bill moves to conference to try to address her concerns, and to ensure that this provision is as narrowly crafted as possible. clarification of legislative language