Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I hope our colleagues on the other side give the Senator from Illinois an opportunity to raise this issue. This is a very modest request to include this amendment as part of the package. The other measures of the bill obviously are going to have to be addressed some other way, but I cannot imagine anyone in this Chamber, regardless of party, who would deny people who have lost jobs under the circumstance of this past number of months would want to turn down what the Senator from Illinois is suggesting. This is basic stuff for people who are hurting, and I urge my colleagues on the other side, whatever differences we may have on other issues, please do not disagree with us.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend both leaders for their comments about the proposed agenda. While I certainly am not in a position to comment on the merits or demerits of the various proposals that have been suggested, there is one item in which the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I are particularly interested. We are grateful to the majority leader and the Republican leader for making specific reference to the election reform proposal the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, Senator Bond, Senator Schumer, Senator Torricelli, Senator Durbin, and others have worked on to bring legislation to the point where we think we have a good product to present to our colleagues, to the Congress as a whole, ultimately to the President for his signature, and, more importantly, to the American people in response to a situation that did not merely occur in one State, in one election, but as we all know now for a number of years a slow deteriorating process of our election system to such a degree that it was crying out reform. While we have not solved every single problem, we think we have set up a mechanism for the first time to deal with election issues for the foreseeable future, under a proposal offered by my colleague from Kentucky, a permanent commission, which I think is an excellent suggestion. We deal with some fraud issues that Senator Bond thinks are very important if we are going to have an election reform issue. While we may not have dealt with every issue, we think we have taken a major step in addressing some of the concerns he has raised. For those of us who are interested in the disabled in this country, those who were denied an opportunity to vote who had a right to vote-- many studies indicate that happened in far more cases than any of us would like to admit--we think we have put together a pretty good package for which we are very proud. That is not to suggest we have dotted every ``i'' and crossed every ``t'' and thought about every possible reform or improvement, but we think we have about as good a product as could be presented to a body such as this for their consideration. I do not know what the agenda will be of the leadership, but I think, for myself and Senator McConnell, we are prepared to go forward when they would like us to go. Whenever that is appropriate, we are ready to present a proposal we think will enjoy very broad-based support, not only in this Chamber but throughout the country, including the National Association of Secretaries of State and others who have worked with us, and various other organizations around the country that are deeply interested in the election process. I see my friend from Kentucky, to whom I would be happy to yield, but I say first when the bell rings and the leadership decides it is appropriate, these two Members and others who joined us and are prepared to present a proposal that we hope will enjoy the kind of support for which we think it is deserving. I yield to my friend from Kentucky.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I anticipate the arrival of my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, at any moment because we would like to at least put our colleagues on notice today of our intention to introduce legislation to strengthen the independence and objectively of corporate audits in this country. I have the fortunate job of being the chairman of the Securities Subcommittee of the Banking Committee of the Senate. I have held that position for a number of years, both as chairman and as the ranking Democrat during Republican majorities in this Chamber, and have worked very closely with a number of my colleagues on a variety of issues affecting the securities industry, the confidence in our markets. Obviously, the events we have heard about over the last number of days involving the Enron Corporation and Arthur Andersen's accounting firm and other questions have raised some issues that Senator Corzine and I think need addressing. They have been discussed in the past. We have never codified some of these issues, but they have been the subject of extensive debate and discussion as how best to proceed. We do not have the specific bill yet to put before the Senate today. We will in the coming few days, possibly as early as next week or the week after. We will lay out what we think is a framework for how, at least from the perspective of investor confidence, the accounting industry particularly needs to deal with the issue of consultive services and auditing services that they provide. Our financial markets are the most vibrant in the world. That is stated over and over again. It cannot be stated often enough because it is true. There is a very simple reason for that continued success and that is because investors have confidence when they take their hard- earned money and in America they invest it in the public companies of this Nation. The world comes to the United States to invest because they know they will receive, very simply, a fair and honest deal. It is that simple. There may be other factors and certainly we know that around the world there may be potentially a better return on one's investment in Asian markets and European markets or elsewhere, but the world comes to the United States because they know, while there may not be the opportunity to maybe make as much on their investment as may be offered elsewhere, that in this country if one comes here, our system is fair. Our system is fair and just, and that is one of the great attractions to domestic investors as well as foreign investors. We can point to the depth of liquidity in this country, the degree of efficiencies in our markets, but ultimately the investing public, both internationally and domestically, invests in our markets and our companies because they believe the public information about these companies is true and it is accurate. The accounting profession has played an incredibly important role in attaining and ensuring this investor confidence, and they deserve great credit, in my view, for the tremendous job they have done historically. The seal of approval that our accounting firms provide is a franchise of which we should be immensely proud in this country, and I think most of us are. However, that franchise is in danger of losing the investing public's trust. Once lost, that trust would be difficult, if not impossible, to recover, at least in the short term. In recent years, there have been a series of very high-profile accounting failures. The Enron failure may be the most prominent case, but it is certainly not an isolated incident. Indeed, it is only the latest, perhaps the most publicized, incident in a troubling series of incidents calling into question the integrity of corporate audits. More financial restatements on corporate earnings have been filed in the past 3 years than in the previous 10 years combined. These restatements have in most instances dramatically downgraded the financial health of the companies in question. The collapse of Enron, specifically the seemingly massive failure of auditors to recognize and act on the myriad of financial reporting irregularities, focuses our attention on a central question: Are reforms needed to preserve and strengthen the integrity of the audit process? I have come to the conclusion that they are. The accounting profession is undergoing tremendous change. Accounting firms no longer simply provide audit services. In response to our dynamic economy, they have adapted to become full-service financial consulting companies. I strongly support the diversification that is occurring in the accounting industry. In many cases, this development of expanding their services has allowed them to provide far better audits than they did in the past. However, these changes must not come, in my view, at the expense of these accounting firms' Federal mandate to provide objective and independent financial reporting. Conflict of interest, even the perception of conflict, undermines the confidence of the investing public. I do not believe the Enron collapse was caused solely by the lack of auditor independence. That would be a terribly naive conclusion to draw. Many facts are yet to be uncovered. However, it is well known that the company's auditor received greater compensation for the nonaudit services it provided to Enron than for the audit services it provided. No one could fail to be troubled by the simple fact that there was compensation of $27 million for consulting services and $25 million for auditing services. No one can say it does not raise questions about the objectivity of the audit process. No one, I believe, can seriously argue that when all the questions have been raised, we should not do everything possible to strengthen the independence and objectivity of financial audits. That is what we rely on. There is an inherent conflict. The auditor's compensation is paid for by the very company being audited. We cannot change that. The only way I suppose would be to establish some Government agency or huge division within the Securities and Exchange Commission that would conduct the Government audits of public companies. I don't know that anyone suggests that. I am not suggesting we ought to change the present system of having these accounting firms conduct these audits. The problem is, if that same company is not only providing the audit but also providing a variety of other services, there is the perception, at the least, of a problem. I use the analogy of hiring a construction firm to build your house while the contractor is also the building inspector. One may end up with a great house, but there are some inherent concerns for the homeowner about whether or not the construction would be done as well, as soundly, and met all the requirements. I do not believe the fact that the Enron Corporation hired Arthur Andersen to be its consultant and auditor necessarily caused this entire problem, but the fact is when a firm is doing both those functions for the same company, the investor confidence so critical to the success of our markets comes in question. For those reasons, Senator Corzine of New Jersey and I plan to introduce legislation in the coming days to implement four critical reforms to the auditing process. First, it restricts auditors from offering nonaudit service to audit clients. Accounting firms could continue to provide audit and nonaudit services to clients, but they could not offer both services to the same client. I don't think that is an outrageous suggestion. I am not suggesting they ought not provide consulting services. It strengthens the audit process. If one client is providing those two services to the same client, there is at least a perception of a serious problem. I suggest that Enron's problem is not an isolated case; it is more widespread. Again, accounting firms continue to provide audit and nonaudit services. They cannot offer both. This restriction builds upon the important work in this area performed by former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt and former SEC chief accountant Lynn Turner, who should be commended for their tireless efforts. The SEC's current auditor independence rule has helped but, in my view, is inadequate to ensure full auditor independence. Second, we propose a prohibition on any accounting firm providing an audit for a company whose comptroller or chief financial officer has worked for such accounting firm in the previous 2 years. This will help reduce the potential for conflict of interest that may arise when accountants become senior executives at companies they audited. Third, we strengthen the independence of the standard-setting body for the accounting profession, the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The FASB is acknowledged around the world as the best accounting standard setter. But the FASB often comes under tremendous pressure from a variety of sources to adopt standards that could cloud rather than clarify a company's health from the point of view of investors. A few years ago a suggestion was made that Congress would legislate certain accounting practices that the FASB would have to sanction. I did not necessarily disagree with some who were raising the issue about various accounting procedures or practices. The idea that Congress would get in the business of legislating, by margins of 51-to-49 votes in this body, is a frightening prospect--that we would so politicize the Financial Accounting Standards Board. I can only thank those who may have agreed as I did, or at least partially agreed with some who made the suggestion, that we did not allow that to happen. Certainly FASB needs to remain independent and not subjected to the kind of political pressures suggested some time ago. Our legislation also improves the independence and effectiveness of FASB by securing a steady funding source and encouraging greater timeliness of actions. One problem is they are very slow. They cannot keep up with what is going on in the real economy. FASB needs to act expeditiously in response to issues. Lastly, our legislation improves the ability of the SEC to improve audit quality by doubling the size of the SEC accounting staff. Presently, the accounting staff is 20 to 25 people, the size of a congressional office, for oversight over all of the accounting firms and the audits that occur in the country. I am not suggesting just more personnel will necessarily solve the problem, but by increasing the size of that staff, and then having more random audits of the audits done, the prospect has its own obvious benefit to this potential problem. SEC accountants would help the agency do a better job of ensuring that audits meet the high standards of independence and objectivity that have been a hallmark of the American accounting profession. In closing, I have spoken about the reforms with a number of knowledgeable people over the last several days, including those in the accounting profession. They have said privately these reforms go a long way to strengthening audits and the confidence of the American public. I look forward to working with Chairman Sarbanes, who has already announced good hearings on the broader issue we are dealing with, and with the former SEC Commissioners, and has invited the chief accountants of the SEC to talk to our committee in a formal hearing setting. That will be tremendously helpful in examining what may be the best way to proceed. What we want to do after we lay down a bill is invite these people to respond before the committees conducting hearings on the subject matter. I see my friend and colleague from New Jersey who brings a wealth of experience to this subject matter. In his previous life he worked for many years in the financial services sector. He is recognized in this Chamber and elsewhere for the tremendous amount of knowledge he acquired over the years in this area. I am pleased to be joining with him in this piece of legislation. Before I turn to my friend from New Jersey, my friend from Missouri is here. He is a knowledge builder as to this subject matter as well. As on most subjects, he has very strong feelings. I will not lure him into that at this particular moment because I want to hear his comments, if I may indulge my friend from New Jersey for a moment. Senator Bond and Senator McConnell and I have worked, for almost a year, putting together an election reform bill. Senator McConnell was here a few minutes ago talking about where things are and our willingness to come to the floor for our leadership, who asked us to do so. I again say publicly how much I appreciate the tremendous effort of my friend from Missouri. He is a great debater and tough negotiator, but when he gives his hand and shakes, it is a done deal. I ask unanimous consent to yield to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that will help address a growing problem in America, our ability to provide safe and affordable housing that meets the needs of older Americans. Currently there are 35 million Americans over 65 years old. That number will double within the next thirty years. By 2030, 20 percent of the U.S. population will be over 65 years old. Both of the bills that I am introducing will promote the development of assisted living programs to provide a wide range of services, including medical assistance, housekeeping services, hygiene and grooming, and meals preparation. Providing these services will in turn give older Americans greater opportunities to decide for themselves where they live and how they exercise their independence. The first bill I am introducing is the ``Elderly Plus Supportive Health Support Demonstration Act,'' which will provide Federal grants to allow public housing authorities around the country to develop new strategies for providing better housing for senior citizens. Nearly one third of all public housing units are occupied by senior citizens. This figure has been steadily growing in recent years and will undoubtedly continue to grow in the future. It is critically important that we remain committed to providing low-income seniors with safe and affordable housing. Unfortunately, as we examine the public housing stock across the country, we find a bleak situation. Over 66 percent of existing public housing units are more than 30 years old and most are not designed to meet the needs of older Americans. For example, too few of our housing units are equipped with equipment and features that facilitate mobility for those in wheelchairs. Even such simple things as having a kitchen counter top that can be reached from a wheelchair may make the difference between a senior being able to stay in her home or having to leave, often to be sent to an institution where seniors have less independence and control over their lives. The ``Elder Housing Plus Health Support Demonstration Act'' will give public housing authorities the tools they need to improve our public housing stock so our seniors will not be prematurely forced out of their homes. The second bill that I am introducing is the ``Assisted Living Tax Credit Act,'' which will provide a tax incentive to help construct assisted living housing for low- and moderate-income Americans. The current stock of assisted living facilities is inadequate to meet demand in certain places around the country and the stock of moderately-priced units is even tighter. The demand for assisted living units will only increase as our population ages and this highly desired housing choice should be available to all Americans. The ``Assisted Living Tax Credit Act'' will help make assisted living arrangements available to those who have previously been priced out of the market. The scarceness of affordable assisted living units has social costs that we must consider as we set national housing policies for the future. Often, the cost of taking care of an aging family member can be devastating to American families. Too often, working men and women are torn between the need to maintain their jobs and the desire to provide the best possible care to their aging family members. Advances in medicine are allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. Longevity is a great blessing, but it also poses significant challenges for individuals, families, and society as whole. One of the largest challenges we will face in the decades ahead is the challenge of defining new kinds of housing that respond to the needs of our growing elderly population. It is my hope that the bills I am introducing today will generate earnest discussion on these important matters and will ultimately lead to action to ensure that every American senior can live in security and dignity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Elderly Housing Plus Health Support Demonstration Act'' be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the ``Assisted Living Tax Credit Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with my friend and colleague from Georgia, Senator Miller, to help individuals whose personal time is interrupted by the constant annoyance of telephone solicitors. Our bill, modeled after a Connecticut statute, would require the Federal Trade Commission to establish a ``no-call'' list of consumers who do not wish to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls. A Department of Labor survey reports that 84 percent of Americans would trade income for more free time. People want to spend more time in the evening with their families, whether it be sitting down to dinner together, relaxing in front of the television, helping children with homework, or catching up with household chores. I suspect most people do not want to be inconvenienced with intrusive, unsolicited telemarketing calls during the evening or anytime throughout the day. Telemarketing revenue increased from $492.3 billion in 1998 to $585.9 billion in 2000, which translates into millions of phone calls every year. While many sales pitches are made on behalf of legitimate organizations and businesses, consumers still lose more than $40 billion a year to fraudulent sales of goods and services over the telephone. It is time to empower consumers with the ability to stop most unsolicited calls, legitimate or otherwise, from entering their homes and disturbing their lives. In Connecticut, people now have the right to place their name on a ``do not call'' list and more than 225,000 households have contacted the Department on Consumer Protection to take advantage of the new law. All telemarketers are required to consult that list and are prohibited from contacting households on the list. Other states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee, have enacted similar laws. States are taking this action because a 1994 Federal law to curb unsolicited telemarketing, while a good beginning, has not fully succeeded in protecting families' privacy. In fact, individual consumers must keep track of every telemarketer they have contacted to determine if a solicitation call was made in violation. There are numerous exemptions to the Federal law, as well, as because there are no penalties for calls made in ``error,'' it has proved difficult to enforce. Direct Marketing Association members do not oppose the Connecticut law. It is their belief that consumers placing their name on a list would never buy a product from a telemarketer anyway, and thus the list saves telemarketers time and resources. Our legislation would take much of the burden off of consumers. At the same time, a comprehensive and universal law actually could help telemarketers by streamlining the process. The legislation we are introducing today would require the Federal Trade Commission to establish a ``no sales solicitation calls'' listing of consumers who do not wish to receive unsolicited calls. Although certain types of calls would be exempt, including calls from any company with whom a consumer currently does business, non-profits looking for donations, pollsters, and those publishing telephone directories, a violation of the ``no call'' list would be deemed an unfair or deceptive trade practice and the telemarketer could be fined. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important consumer legislation and I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. I think the chair and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with my friend and colleague from Georgia, Senator Miller, to help individuals whose personal time is interrupted by the constant annoyance of telephone solicitors. Our bill, modeled after a Connecticut statute, would require the Federal Trade Commission to establish a ``no-call'' list of consumers who do not wish to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls. A Department of Labor survey reports that 84 percent of Americans would trade income for more free time. People want to spend more time in the evening with their families, whether it be sitting down to dinner together, relaxing in front of the television, helping children with homework, or catching up with household chores. I suspect most people do not want to be inconvenienced with intrusive, unsolicited telemarketing calls during the evening or anytime throughout the day. Telemarketing revenue increased from $492.3 billion in 1998 to $585.9 billion in 2000, which translates into millions of phone calls every year. While many sales pitches are made on behalf of legitimate organizations and businesses, consumers still lose more than $40 billion a year to fraudulent sales of goods and services over the telephone. It is time to empower consumers with the ability to stop most unsolicited calls, legitimate or otherwise, from entering their homes and disturbing their lives. In Connecticut, people now have the right to place their name on a ``do not call'' list and more than 225,000 households have contacted the Department on Consumer Protection to take advantage of the new law. All telemarketers are required to consult that list and are prohibited from contacting households on the list. Other states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee, have enacted similar laws. States are taking this action because a 1994 Federal law to curb unsolicited telemarketing, while a good beginning, has not fully succeeded in protecting families' privacy. In fact, individual consumers must keep track of every telemarketer they have contacted to determine if a solicitation call was made in violation. There are numerous exemptions to the Federal law, as well, as because there are no penalties for calls made in ``error,'' it has proved difficult to enforce. Direct Marketing Association members do not oppose the Connecticut law. It is their belief that consumers placing their name on a list would never buy a product from a telemarketer anyway, and thus the list saves telemarketers time and resources. Our legislation would take much of the burden off of consumers. At the same time, a comprehensive and universal law actually could help telemarketers by streamlining the process. The legislation we are introducing today would require the Federal Trade Commission to establish a ``no sales solicitation calls'' listing of consumers who do not wish to receive unsolicited calls. Although certain types of calls would be exempt, including calls from any company with whom a consumer currently does business, non-profits looking for donations, pollsters, and those publishing telephone directories, a violation of the ``no call'' list would be deemed an unfair or deceptive trade practice and the telemarketer could be fined. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important consumer legislation and I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. I think the chair and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that will help address a growing problem in America, our ability to provide safe and affordable housing that meets the needs of older Americans. Currently there are 35 million Americans over 65 years old. That number will double within the next thirty years. By 2030, 20 percent of the U.S. population will be over 65 years old. Both of the bills that I am introducing will promote the development of assisted living programs to provide a wide range of services, including medical assistance, housekeeping services, hygiene and grooming, and meals preparation. Providing these services will in turn give older Americans greater opportunities to decide for themselves where they live and how they exercise their independence. The first bill I am introducing is the ``Elderly Plus Supportive Health Support Demonstration Act,'' which will provide Federal grants to allow public housing authorities around the country to develop new strategies for providing better housing for senior citizens. Nearly one third of all public housing units are occupied by senior citizens. This figure has been steadily growing in recent years and will undoubtedly continue to grow in the future. It is critically important that we remain committed to providing low-income seniors with safe and affordable housing. Unfortunately, as we examine the public housing stock across the country, we find a bleak situation. Over 66 percent of existing public housing units are more than 30 years old and most are not designed to meet the needs of older Americans. For example, too few of our housing units are equipped with equipment and features that facilitate mobility for those in wheelchairs. Even such simple things as having a kitchen counter top that can be reached from a wheelchair may make the difference between a senior being able to stay in her home or having to leave, often to be sent to an institution where seniors have less independence and control over their lives. The ``Elder Housing Plus Health Support Demonstration Act'' will give public housing authorities the tools they need to improve our public housing stock so our seniors will not be prematurely forced out of their homes. The second bill that I am introducing is the ``Assisted Living Tax Credit Act,'' which will provide a tax incentive to help construct assisted living housing for low- and moderate-income Americans. The current stock of assisted living facilities is inadequate to meet demand in certain places around the country and the stock of moderately-priced units is even tighter. The demand for assisted living units will only increase as our population ages and this highly desired housing choice should be available to all Americans. The ``Assisted Living Tax Credit Act'' will help make assisted living arrangements available to those who have previously been priced out of the market. The scarceness of affordable assisted living units has social costs that we must consider as we set national housing policies for the future. Often, the cost of taking care of an aging family member can be devastating to American families. Too often, working men and women are torn between the need to maintain their jobs and the desire to provide the best possible care to their aging family members. Advances in medicine are allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. Longevity is a great blessing, but it also poses significant challenges for individuals, families, and society as whole. One of the largest challenges we will face in the decades ahead is the challenge of defining new kinds of housing that respond to the needs of our growing elderly population. It is my hope that the bills I am introducing today will generate earnest discussion on these important matters and will ultimately lead to action to ensure that every American senior can live in security and dignity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Elderly Housing Plus Health Support Demonstration Act'' be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the ``Assisted Living Tax Credit Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 3 months ago, our nation suffered devastating terrorist attacks. We are now confronted with one of the many aftereffects of the terrible events of September 11th on our nation. We are faced with the prospect that insurance protecting America's buildings, businesses, homes and workers from terrorist acts will no longer be available. It is generally accepted that roughly 70 percent of insurance contracts are scheduled to be renewed by year's end. Already, many insurers have announced their intention to withdraw terrorism coverage from new insurance policies. This is simply because primary insurers, who deal directly with policyholders, have been unable to, in the short term, purchase reinsurance from an unstable reinsurance market. Reinsurers are currently unwilling to write coverage in the face of future catastrophic losses equal in magnitude to those suffered at the World Trade Center. Without the ability to purchase reinsurance, primary insurers cannot actuarially price policies that incorporate the assumption of catastrophic terrorist losses. They are faced with two choices. They can seek permission from state regulators to exclude terrorist acts from all of their policies. Or they can charge incredibly high premiums--rates are nearly certain to go up 500 to 1000 percent of what is presently required. No shareholder could be reasonably expected to allow their insurance company to underwrite the seemingly immeasurable exposure of a terrorist act without drastically raising rates. Without federal action, we risk either the possibility that our Nation's economy will remain defenseless from a terrorist attack or the possibility that insurance companies will charge unaffordable rates to every American insurance consumer. Several of us endeavored to draft legislation to provide a short-term remedy aimed to bring stability to the insurance market, to protect taxpayers, and to ensure that bank lending, construction, and other activities vital to our economic health would not be jeopardized. It is deeply regrettable that this legislation will not be considered by the Senate prior to the end of this session. It is particularly regrettable because the reason that this legislation was not considered had nothing to due with the core issue of terrorism insurance; it had to do with liability reform. Deep-seated differences on the issue created an impasse. That is most unfortunate. The legislation that Senator Sarbanes, Senator Schumer and I offered was a modest proposal. It is based on three principles that must be included in any bill on this subject matter. First, it makes the American taxpayer the insurer of last resort. The insurance industry maintains front-line responsibility to do what it does best: calculate risk, assess premiums, and pay claims to policyholders. Second, it promotes competition in the current insurance marketplace. Competition is the best way to ensure that the private market assumes the entire responsibility for insuring against the risk of terrorism, without any direct government role, as soon as possible. This bill is a temporary measure only, lasting for 24 months at most. Third, it ensures that all consumers and businesses can continue to purchase affordable coverage for terrorist acts. Without action, consumers may be unable to get insurance or the insurance available will be unaffordable. I intend to watch the markets and the economy closely in the coming days and I am prepared to revisit this issue early next year if the need arises.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is after 6 p.m. in the evening and I suspect that many normal people are sitting down having dinner, enjoying a quiet moment with their families. I hope in fact that many of our colleagues are doing that since there are no longer any votes this evening. We are about to make an announcement, my colleague and friend from Kentucky, and, if he can make it, our colleague from Missouri, along with my friends from New York and New Jersey and others who have joined us in crafting an election reform compromise. Mr. President, the Chamber may be sparse in participation at this late hour and it may be after working hours for most, but may I suggest what we are about to introduce is ``landmark'' legislation. It will have been 36 years, I think, since the last time this body dealt with the issue of voting rights from a Federal perspective. The Voting Rights Act was the last major civil rights legislation dealing with the voting rights of the American public. I begin these remarks by, first of all, expressing my deep gratitude to my friend from Kentucky who has been my chairman on the Rules Committee, and is now my ranking member on the Rules Committee, for his efforts, and those of his staff and others over these many weeks in putting this proposal together which we now offer to our colleagues as a bipartisan compromise. Our hope is that on our return, at some early date--and again, we will ask leadership for advice and counsel--we might bring this matter before the Senate when we return to the second session of Congress to adopt this election reform proposal. Everyone is aware of what the world was like a year ago when the major story was not about Afghanistan and terrorism but about the condition of the election system in the country, particularly the events surrounding the Presidential race. I am not here today to talk about what happened. What happened last year was not an occurrence in one State or one election but a wake-up call for everyone about the deteriorating condition of our election system across the country. This does not happen on one night, in one State, in one election. There has been a lot spoken about that race, those particular events. We have tried with this bill to look forward and not look back as to how we can respond to this in a responsible way so we may live up to our historic obligations in this Chamber to see to it that the rights of all Americans--specifically, the most fundamental of rights, the right to vote--is protected and the votes are counted. Thomas Paine said very appropriately more than 200 years ago that the right to vote is ``the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' It is about as basic a statement and basic a right as we can identify. The very credibility of every other action we take as a people, not to mention as a Congress, but as a people, in this Chamber and elsewhere, depends upon the American people's belief in the integrity of the election system which puts everyone in these seats as well as the seats occupied in every office, from the lowest political body in the country to the most exalted in the Presidency of the United States. This bipartisan compromise we introduce today is not a condemnation of the past at all but rather a reflection of the promise of the future. The problems faced by voters across the Nation last November served, as I said a moment ago, as a wake-up call that our system of Federal elections was in serious need of reform and help. That is what we tried to do with this bill. This is landmark legislation. Our task is to provide the necessary Federal leadership and resources to assist State and local officials without in any way usurping their historic responsibility to administer Federal elections. This bipartisan compromise reflects the necessary balance between the Federal interests in assuring the integrity of Federal elections and the authority of State and local officials to determine the best means by which to conduct those very elections. I am very grateful to my colleagues for their considerable contributions to this compromise. I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senator McConnell, for his leadership, for his perseverance on this issue, and for his very significant contributions which I will identify shortly. Senator Schumer of New York, a member of the Rules Committee, has been active working on election reform since the beginning of this Congress when he became interested in the subject matter. My good friend from the State of Missouri, Senator Bond, early on recognized the need for Federal leadership in this area, particularly the need for Federal antifraud standards. And Senator Robert Torricelli, along with Senator McConnell, introduced one of the very first election reform measures in the Senate following the elections of last year. There are many others involved in the debates and discussion, but those are the principals who have worked the hardest to craft this package and to present it to this Chamber. I acknowledge the tireless work of my coauthor in the House, Congressman John Conyers, the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus. Throughout this long year of hearings, debate, and negotiation, he has been a friend and a stalwart believer in the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure that every eligible American has an equal opportunity to vote and to have their votes counted. This compromise owes much to his vision and dedication to producing a bipartisan agreement. Simply put, this bipartisan compromise makes it easier for every eligible American to vote and to have their vote counted while ensuring that protections are in place to prevent fraud. As my colleague and friend from Missouri has said so succinctly, it ought to be easy to vote in America and it ought to be very hard to cheat. We think we have struck that balance. We do not claim perfection, but we believe we put together the provisions which will certainly advance the measure of both goals: to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat in this system and thus devalue the legitimate vote of those who honestly go about the business of counting ballots. The bipartisan substitute we introduce today represents a strong response to the first civil rights challenge, in our view, of the 21st century and protects the voting rights of every eligible American, regardless of the individual's race, ethnicity, disability, English proficiency, or the level of financial resources available to the community in which he or she lives and votes. This compromise preserves the fundamental philosophy of the original bill: The Federal Government must set minimum standards for the conduct of Federal elections. We have expanded the original standards to include minimum requirements to defer fraud and have created a new Election Administration Commission to assure that, going forward, expertise and assistance will be available to the States and localities to meet these minimum standards. Specifically, this compromise sets the following three minimum standards for Federal elections: Beginning in the year 2006, election systems must meet voting system standards providing for acceptable error rates, and provide notification for voters who overvote, while ensuring such systems are accessible to every blind and disabled person, and to language minorities, in a manner that ensures a private and independent vote. Second, beginning in the year 2004, States must have in place provisional balloting systems so that no registered voter in America can ever be turned away from the polls without the opportunity to cast their ballot. Third, States must establish a statewide computer voter registration list, and beginning next year, provide for verification for voters who register by mail in order to prevent fraudulent voting. Those are minimum standards. They do not require a one-size-fits-all approach to Federal elections, nor do they require that any particular voting system be used or discarded, for that matter. Instead, the minimum standards ensure that every voting system--be it electronic machines or paper ballots--meet certain basic standards. And we explicitly guarantee to every State the ability to meet these standards in a way that best serves the unique needs of their communities. Most importantly, this bipartisan compromise provides the funds to help States meet these requirements. For the first time, the Federal Government will contribute its fair share to the cost of administering elections for Federal office. That, in and of itself, is a historic change. The compromise authorizes a total of $3.5 billion over 5 years towards this end. A total of $3 billion is authorized to fund the minimum standards, and an additional $400 million is authorized in fiscal year 2002 for incentive grants to allow States to immediately move forward to implement election improvements, particularly in the antifraud area. There is $100 million in fiscal year 2002 provided for grants to make polling places physically accessible to those with disabilities. Never again should our fellow Americans who are blind or wheelchair bound have to suffer the indignities of being lifted into polling places or held at a curbside waiting for an accessible machine. This significant commitment of resources underscores the fact that nothing in this bill establishes an unfunded mandate on States or localities. To the contrary, this compromise reflects a commitment on the part of Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber to provide not only the leadership but the resources at the Federal level to ensure the integrity of our Federal elections. The Senate majority leader, Senator Daschle, has publicly committed to bringing S. 565, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act to the floor early next year, at which time this bipartisan compromise will be offered as a substitute. I encourage my colleagues and the leader to make this bill one of the first measures--maybe the first measure--in the second session of the 107th Congress. I can think of no better way to begin the second session of this historic Congress than with a bipartisan measure whose sole purpose is to ensure the integrity of our system of Federal elections and the continued vitality of our democracy. In the midst of all that has happened since September 11, I couldn't think of a better way to begin the new year than to work together in the Chamber to do something so critically fundamental to the success and soundness of our Nation. I thank, again, my cosponsors--Senator McConnell, specifically for his crafting of the commission concept, which I think is a wonderful idea, so we will have a permanent venue to begin to deal with these issues. I am sure he will explain in greater detail how this commission works. But without his contribution we might have only ended up with a temporary commission that would have gone out of existence in a short period of time and allowed, once again, the system to deteriorate. There is no guarantee it will not. But with a commission in place, we will be in a much stronger position over the years to respond to these issues on a continuing basis. I thank Senator Bond. His contribution was to the fraud area. Without him coming to the table and adding that element here, we might have left that out. It is a serious issue, one that deserves consideration. He has crafted some very sound provisions in this bill which add a very important leg to this. With what I have talked about in the area of disabilities and provisional voting in addition to our requirement of statewide voter registration, these minimum standards, the broad provisions and the commission, we have not solved every problem at all. We are not dealing with every single issue that comes up. But that is one of the reasons why the commission can make a significant contribution. I want to thank specifically our staff: Tam Sommerville and Brian Lewis of Senator McConnell's Rule Committee staff; Julie Dammann and Jack Bartling of Senator Bond's office; Sharon Levin and Polly Trottenberg of Senator Schumer's office; Sarah Wills and Jennifer Leach of Senator Torricelli's office; and, in my office, Kennie Gill, Veronica Gillesie, and Stacy Beck, along with Shawn Maher and others, for helping put this together. I look forward, in the early part of the year, to debate and discussion on the subject matter. Again, I appreciate the wonderful work of my colleagues. It has been a long road but we think we have produced a very good piece of legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues when we return. I see the distinguished leader. I know he probably has other obligations. My colleague from Kentucky is here, but if the leader would care to make a comment on this, we welcome it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I know Senator Daschle and others are working on this. Colleagues who are paying attention to this and heard the comments of our colleague from New York and myself, there are matters involved in this that I know are important to some but, in terms of the centerpiece of what we are trying to do, are really extraneous. We are talking about a brief period of time for this bill to work. I know there are matters others would like to use dealing with other, more profound, long-term issues on this bill, and I urge them to hold up if they can and not allow a larger debate on those questions and not stop the debate on something that needs to be dealt with in the next 24 hours before we recess for the year. The President has urged us to do this. Every single industry group I know of beyond the insurance industry--the private sector--is calling on us to deal with this issue. Even the Consumer Federation has different ideas but understands our failure to act could create a serious problem. For us to not even try I think would be a huge mistake. I urge before we recess that we make an effort, starting early tomorrow, to give this body time to hear some of the various ideas my colleagues may have. I may disagree with them on those ideas, but I am prepared to spend the time necessary tomorrow to engage in debate on those ideas, resolve them one way or another, and send this bill from this Chamber to conference with the one adopted in the House and resolve it, so we can finish the business of giving the President a proposal that will avoid the kinds of problems the Senator from New York has very properly described. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. Before he arrived, I thanked him. In his presence, I thank him. The Senator played a very critical role in putting this product together. He is a new Member of the Senate, but he has already demonstrated, as others have pointed out, that he is very much a seasoned legislator. He brings from the New York legislature and from the other body years of experience, and it is a pleasure to do business with my colleague from the neighboring State of New York. I hesitate to use the word ``landmark'' because we haven't finished it, but you can sense the enthusiasm we all feel about this compromise and at being able to arrive at a moment where we have the names already as cosponsors of a substitute that demonstrates a bipartisan commitment to this issue. We don't claim perfection with this bill, but we do claim we are going to certainly improve the process immeasurably. My hope is that the leaders will find a time, if not as the first bill, as one of the early proposals we can bring to the floor for consideration. I didn't want the Senator to leave the floor because I wanted to change the subject briefly. I will leave the record open for others who may want to comment about this bill. The hour is getting late and the time is running short. We all want to depart. I want to mention the terrorism insurance bill, which is of critical importance to my colleague from New York. It is very important to many people across the country. I don't know what is going to happen with the so-called stimulus bill, but the terrorist insurance proposal is about as important a piece of legislation as this body could consider. We have been at this now for a couple months trying to craft a proposal that would allow us to bridge this time from the September 11 events to a time when the industry would be able to calculate risk through the reinsurance efforts, and then through competitive pricing, be able to get back into this business. It is a very complicated and arcane subject. It is not one that is going to be easily understood because the subject matter is complicated. Suffice it to say this: A critical leg of a healthy economy is the insurance industry. You cannot really have a healthy economy without it. People can't buy a home without fire insurance. You can't get loans today without having proper insurance. The Presiding Officer, of course, brings a wealth of experience in this area because of his previous work in State government, where he dealt with insurance both in the private sector as well as a Governor. We have heard from Senator Nelson of Florida, also. I know the Senator from New York is running off, but I hope--and it is my fervent plea this evening with a day left--there is still time for us to get this matter up. We are very close. I hope that Members on both sides will allow a motion to proceed to go forward. Give us a day, if that is what we can have, to consider various amendments on this bill. The House already passed one. Bob Rubin, the former Secretary of the Treasury, when asked how he would calibrate the importance of this issue--and I can paraphrase his remarks and I think my friend from New York may have been there--said that this was as important, if not more important, than the stimulus package we have been considering. Our failure to address and deal with this issue could mean that small businesses, construction projects, all across America, come January, will cease. Unemployment will go longer--not of CEOs of insurance companies, but of construction workers, small business people, shopkeepers--all of whom need to have this bill if they are going to get the bank loans to continue to operate. This has to get done. If we don't do it, this body will be held accountable, in my view. We have known about this issue for weeks. Yet, we have not yet brought the matter to the floor. I hope that will change in the next 24 hours, because if we leave here and don't deal with this, more than 70 percent of these contracts are up for renewal, and we will create a further problem for our economy. So I know it is not at an issue that attracts a lot of support automatically. It is complicated. There is no great affection for the issue of insurance. Those knowledgeable about the importance of this issue for the strength and vitality of our economy, to leave and go home for the holidays and leave this unattended to, I think, is a problem. I think we need to come back over the next day and address this. We may not succeed, but you have to try. I hope this matter will come up on the floor so we can at least debate it and, hopefully, pass it. I know my colleague has a deep interest in the subject matter because of the facts concerning his own city and State. I wanted to give him an opportunity to comment on this as well. I am happy to yield to him or have him claim the floor in his own right.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and submit for the Record the eulogy delivered by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Joe Lieberman, at the December 5 funeral mass for his beloved friend, James Kevin O'Connell. I urge all my colleagues to take the time to read this heartfelt tribute to a man who so touched Senator Lieberman, as well as anyone else who had the pleasure to have known him, as did I. Jimmy O'Connell was best known as Senator Lieberman's driver for 30 years, but as Senator Lieberman makes clear in his beautiful tribute, Jimmy was much, much more than that. One could not have known Jimmy without thinking him a friend, someone to whom you could turn for a quick joke, or a deep philosophical insight. Jimmy, born and raised in New Haven, was truly a great Nutmegger, and a fine American. He spent his life caring for his family, his friends, and his community, Jimmy served for 3 decades as a proud member of the New Haven Police force. Senator Lieberman's tribute reminds us of the value of life, the value of relationships, and the special place in our hearts for Jimmy O'Connell. The eulogy follows. I want to thank Mrs. Agnes O'Connell, Brother Kevin O'Connell and the rest of Jimmy's family for giving me the honor of speaking at this funeral mass for him. And, I also want to thank the O'Connell family for all they did to make James Kevin the wonderful man he was. When a newspaper reporter called on Sunday and asked how I would describe what Jimmy did for me, the words that came out of my mouth were that Jimmy's friendship was one of God's greatest gifts to me. That is how I would describe what he did for me. Jimmy was my friend. For more than three decades, 31 years, I benefitted from Jimmy's wise counsel, his extraordinary intelligence, his warm wit, and his absolute loyalty. I didn't like it when someone referred to Jimmy as my driver because he was so much more than that. But he did drive, and together we had quite a ride over these three decades and met quite a variety of people along the way. We extended each other's reach. From his original political hero Dick Lee to Donald Trump, from Arthur Barbieri to Ariel Sharon, from Vinnie Mauro to Teddy Kennedy. From Hank Parker to Hosni Mubarak, from Jose Cabranes in his Federal Court Chambers in New Haven to Joe Dougherty at his Federal prison cell in New York. Before I left for Washington to become a U.S. Senator in 1989, Jimmy took me for blessings from Archbishop Whalen in Hartford to Rabbi Schneerson in Brooklyn. Together we went from Ridgefield to Riverdale, Westville to Washington, from Legion Avenue to Los Angeles, from Fairhaven to Florida. Now, I can hear Jimmy saying, ``if there were a few more Fairhaveners counting votes in Florida, you would have flown up here this morning on Air Force Two.'' Every now and then during our travels, I would ask Jimmy whether he was following the right directions, and he would quickly and decisively instruct me as to my role in our relationship. ``You take care of war and peace, and I'll get us safely to our next stop.'' And he always did. In all our years and thousands of miles on the road together, Jimmy never had an accident. Now, when one considers how rapidly James drove and how often he drove with one hand at most on the wheel, that safety record is just one more proof of the existence of a caring God. Yes, God watched out for Jimmy O'Connell, and Jimmy O'Connell watched out for God. His faith anchored his life. It gave him perspective, and purpose, and humor and the courage and strength to face and overcome the troubles and challenges he faced, as he did so successfully and inspiringly. Jimmy didn't just go to church faithfully; he lived a life of faith. You could see it in this strength and in his selflessness, in the way he treated everyone he met with the respect and interest and joy due to each of God's children. He loved people. He particularly loved talking to people. Part of that, of course, was the Irish gift with language. But talking was also Jimmy's way of connecting with people, of engaging them, of sharing what he knew and learning what others had to teach him. And, in that, he taught us all a lot about life. In the days since Jimmy's death, I have been impressed and touched by how many people he knew and how many people knew Jimmy, and by how many of them remember how interested he was in them, and how much he cared about them. Jimmy was a devoted and loving son and brother, a good and trustworthy friend, and a generous and involved uncle, to his own nieces and nephews, of whom he was so proud, and to so many others he adopted, including my own children and grandchildren for whom he became ``Uncle Jimmy.'' Warm, caring, fun, I cannot remember an important event in the lives of any of them or us, happy or sad, when Jimmy was not there. Jimmy's faith also helped to shape his politics. Of course, he loved politics as process and got much pleasure from the rich mix of people in it. But Jimmy also had a philosophy, a point of view that I believe came from the social ethics of his Church, and I learned it well in the thousands of conversations we had in the car over the years. He respected people of wealth, particularly those who made it on their own, but Jimmy's heart was with the working men and women, with people in need, particularly children, with poor people trying hard to move up and build a better life for their children. As our mutual friend, Jim Kennedy said, ``Some politicians pay consultants to tell them what people are thinking. Jimmy O'Connell was the voice of the people.'' He wanted government to be there for them when they needed it, as Jimmy himself was there for them when they needed him. He was a doer of good deeds and was so proud of the work his elementary school, St. Francis in Fairhaven, was doing to educate the next generation of America's children who are working their way up. Jimmy was devoted to the Roman Catholic Church, as he liked to call it, but he also had the greatest respect for, and interest in other people's faith. I often said that James Kevin O'Connell knew more about Judaism than most Jews. Over the years he also taught me a lot about Catholicism, its rituals and rules, and its history and heroes. In fact, Jimmy's love of this church and love of his politics came together in a great fascination with movements within the church hierarchy. For instance, when Edward Egan became the Bishop of Bridgeport, Jimmy wryly prohesized to me that Bishop Egan would not be buried in Bridgeport. In other words, that Bridgeport would not be his last stop. And, of course, this is the very same Edward Egan who is now Cardinal Egan of New York. Jimmy's love for politics was joined naturally with his belief in public service and civil service. For almost three decades he served the city of his birth with skill and honor as a proud member of its police department, rising to the rank of Lieutenant at his death. He loved his New Haven Police colleagues and greatly enjoyed our meetings with police around the state, and throughout the country, who were members of what he thought of as a great fraternity. Jimmy's passing early Sunday morning came much too soon. But I can assure you, as a matter of faith, that he was more prepared for his death than we were. The loss of Jimmy is very painful to me. I will miss him deeply as will so many others who are here today. But as we experience our grief, we should remember Jimmy's faith and Jimmy's words. He said to me more than once, ``Remember none of us is getting out of here alive.'' And he believed with a perfect faith that this life, as enjoyable as he found it, was just a bridge to an even better place, and so he did not fear death. Jimmy often asked me to do something for somebody else, but he never asked me to do much of anything for himself. Years ago a mutual friend told me that he had asked Jimmy what he really wanted from me, and Jimmy said, ``I want to be there to turn the lights off when he leaves the office for the last time.'' That was Jimmy. Well, if the good Lord gives me the privilege of exiting the office on my own for the last time, I'm going to leave the lights on, for Jimmy. Once in the car we were talking about our visions of the world to come, and I thought I would end the conversation when I said that I would probably go first because I was older, and so I would send him a report on what it was like up there. But Jimmy, as usual, had the last word. ``You never know,'' he said, ``I might go first. And if I do, when you get to the gates, just give me a call, and I'll drive over and pick you up.'' I will do that, James, and I know we'll have a lot to talk about. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick Rooney, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me add my voice to those who have already spoken in commending the chairman of the committee, Senator Kennedy, and the ranking Republican on the committee, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, for their leadership, and John Boehner, the chairman of the House committee, along with George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat. They have been the four principals responsible in the last few months for putting this proposal together. The adjectives describing the contributions of my friend and colleague from Massachusetts are merited, considering the amount of time and effort he has put into this product. Later in my remarks, I will acknowledge the key staff people who have put in tireless hours--forgoing weekends, evenings, and vacations--to try to reach compromises on some of the thorniest issues of this legislation. I thank Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Senator Jeffords began the process as our Senate Education Committee chairperson. He has fought hard for his entire career in public life on behalf of education and certainly made a significant contribution to this bill, particularly in one area he cares about especially deeply, special education. I gather Senator Jeffords may not vote for the conference report at the end of the day because of his deep disappointment over the fact that we did not include mandatory spending for special education. I share his concern. Full-funding for special education gained broad support in this body. Unfortunately, neither the other body in conference nor the administration was supportive, despite the rhetoric of many years for meeting the goal of full-funding; that is, the Federal government providing 40-percent of state's special education costs. In fact, I see my good friend from New Mexico, Pete Domenici, in the Chamber, former chairman of the Budget Committee. I recall sitting on that committee with him some 12 years ago when we actually had a tie vote in the committee on fully funding special education. We will come back to this issue, even though we didn't include it in this bill. The interest and concern of communities all across the country is well founded on this particular issue. I will get into it in a little more detail later. But, in any event, Senator Jeffords deserves a great deal of credit for his tireless efforts on behalf of children, particularly those with disabilities. I also thank President Bush. He is getting a lot of credit these days for the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, and rightfully so. All of the news has been focused on that. But he deserves a great deal of credit, in my view, for making education his top domestic priority. We may have our disagreements, including on significant parts of this bill, even though I intend to support it. But, this administration is quite different from administrations past that we talked about eliminating the Department of Education. We now have a President who is has made education his top domestic priority. Without his leadership on this, without his insistence that this issue be pursued by this Congress, I don't think we would have arrived at the position we have today. I commend the President for his commitment to this cause. I hope it remains throughout his term in office. I hope that during these next 3 years when he submits his budget to the Congress that education will be among his top domestic priorities there, as well. I am confident it will, based on his dedication over the previous year to this issue. I have said I had some concerns about the bill. Obviously, all of us do. That is the nature of compromise. The bill, as we know, requires testing of every child, all 50 million, who go to public schools. Of the 55 million children who go off to school every morning, 50 million go to public elementary or secondary schools, and 5 million to private or parochial schools. We are going to test every child in the third to the eighth grade every year in math and in reading. I think that has some value. My concern is that we may be tilting more toward diagnosis than treatment. Then again, you can't treat unless you diagnose, so I accept the notion that you have to take children's temperatures, if you will. My concern is the obvious one--that once we take their temperatures, are we then going to put the resources into the most troubled communities in America so that these kids get the treatment they need to pass not only the tests they will be required to take in third through eighth grade, but passing more difficult tests in life as to whether or not they can become good citizens, whether or not their education is full and rounded, whether or not they are going to be good parents, whether or not they are going to make a contribution to the economic well-being of our Nation. This bill makes it clear that we must have high expectations for every child, regardless of race, disability, limited English proficiency, or income. Because quality teachers are so critical to children's success, this legislation will insist that all teachers be highly qualified within 4 years. That is a tremendous goal, Mr. President, one which I strongly support. The underlying question I have in all of this is whether or not we will provide the resources, budgetary and otherwise, to achieve those goals. We have added measures to ensure that schools will be accountable for students' progress in reading and math, and in limited English proficiency for students learning English. That is something I strongly support, also. This bill ensures that Federal education reforms and resources are targeted to our neediest children. There are also many parts of the bill that are of particular interest and importance to me. Let me enumerate them quickly. One is that we protected and expanded 21st Century Community Learning Center Programs after school. I know I am preaching to the choir when I talk to my colleagues about this. We understand that this is a dangerous period of time for kids after school. You need only talk to any parent in the country about what happens after school--this is when children are most likely to become victims of a crime, or become involved in bad behavior that could undermine their education and their well-being. We provide something I have felt strongly about for years-- professional development for early childhood educators through competitive grants to local partnerships that focus on helping teachers in child care and other early childhood education programs that support children's learning and development. Again, I am preaching to the choir. I welcome the administration's support for early literacy through the Early Reading First program. The Early Childhood Educator Professional Development grants will complement, rather than duplicate, those efforts, by providing educators with training in all the domains of child development--social, emotional, physical, and cognitive. We must remember that a child's school readiness must include a knowledge of letters, but also how to follow directions, how to work independently or with others, and how to resolve conflicts without aggression, to name a few. These programs work, and there are not enough of them. Children with better qualified early childhood educators have better behavior skills, better vocabularies and pre-reading skills, lower juvenile arrest rates, and do better in school. Yet, most early childhood educators have only a high school diploma. Professional development therefore is critical. I thank Senator DeWine. He and I have worked for many years on Safe and Drug Free Schools. This bill reauthorizes that act and makes significant improvements to it. It ensures that programs under the act will be in response to identified State and local needs, will be based on proven or promising theories, will have clear and measurable goals, and will be undertaken with parent and community input. That is as it should be. These are the people who know best at the local level where the resources should go. The Safe and Drug Free Schools Act has been most successful over the years. I see my colleague from New Mexico here. He and I have championed and worked together on character education for some time. There has been no stronger advocate than Senator Domenici for that. We started out with a tiny pilot program a few years ago because none of us knew for certain whether this noble idea would actually work in practice. As a result of those pilot programs, over the years, we have seen marvelous achievements made by kids in some of the toughest communities and poorest communities in America. As a result of those pilot programs, character education is now part of the seamless garment of learning. Students who receive character education carry with them throughout their lives not only the ability to contribute to society, but also the understanding that it is their responsibility to contribute. We now have some $25 million in character education grants to go to local communities. That is a 300-percent increase over where it was. So I thank my colleague from New Mexico for joining with me over the years in that particular program. I know he will address that in a few minutes. I am also pleased to tell you that this bill includes strong privacy provisions to ensure that schools are centers of learning, not centers of market research. Senator Shelby of Alabama and I, along with Congressman Miller, have worked hard to see to it that parents have a right to know whether their children are being used as marketing tools and the right to say that they don't want their children to be a part of that. It is hard enough to get kids to learn. I am nervous about businesses reaching into captive audiences of kids and probing them about themselves and their families without parental involvement. This bill now adds very strong provisions in that regard. Parents wouldn't allow somebody to come into their home and question their 7- or 8-year- old child without permission. Now, parents will have the right to keep that from happening in the schoolroom--children being subjected to marketing techniques that may violate families's privacy and also used to develop product lines. Today also marks the end of the injustice of treating Puerto Rican children as second-class citizens under title I. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this. I thank Commissioner Annibal Acevedo Vila, the Governor of Puerto Rico, Sila Calderon, and others who have fought very hard to see that we treat Puerto Rican title I children just as we treat every other child in the United States. We do that in this bill. They deserve the same educational opportunities as all American children. They are going to be subjected to the same testing requirements. The expectation that these children perform is just as high in Puerto Rico now as in any other State. Now, they will receive not three-quarters of their allocation of title I funds, but 100 percent. We have set high goals for title 1 authorizations. Senator Collins of Maine and I drafted an amendment that passed with 79 votes for full funding for title I. This bill doesn't have full funding for title I, but this Chamber went on record supporting full funding. I thank Senator Collins for her work in that. We didn't achieve it here, but our goal is that this will ultimately be what is supported by the administration and our colleagues here. The concern I have is one I have expressed all along, and that is whether or not the resources are going to be here to support the reforms. We are taking a leap of faith. Many advocated that we wait before adopting this conference report until the President submitted his budget in January. We could have waited a few weeks to see what President Bush puts on the table before we passed this 6-year bill. We are not going to do that because we are going to rely on the commitments made by the administration that the resources will be there. I would point out that in the midst of this recession, State education budgets have declined in excess of $11 billion since last year. So the demands are going to be even greater than before. The number of low-income students is going to go up. The number of title I students will increase. State budgets are going down. Whether or not we have applied adequate resources, only time will tell. On this issue, the President's rhetoric far exceeds his action so far. I do commend him immensely for making the education issue his top domestic priority. I can only hope that when the budget is submitted come January, the numbers on title I--the numbers needed to support these reforms will be there. We will also continue to fight for full funding of IDEA. The pressures are going to be significant there. By providing only 15 percent, rather than 40 percent, we consign every community in America to making up the difference in their special education budget. That means added pressure on local communities, most of whom pay for education with local property taxes. As I said recently, if we were debating the Defense budget, we would not tolerate anyone saying: This is the best we could do. If it was the Defense budget, we would say: Don't tell us it is the best you can do; tell us what you need and we will provide it. I happen to think education is as important an issue as there is, if not the most important issue. In our democracy and free-market economy, education is critical to success. I would like to think we would do all that needs to be done. So, I am disappointed in the budget numbers, but I am confident that over time, we will gain the support we need to provide the resources necessary to implement the reforms included in this legislation. To give my colleagues an idea, the title I increases in my State of Connecticut are not insignificant, a 20-percent increase in title I funding which will be very helpful. In Hartford, CT, that means going from a little more than $16 million to in excess of $22 million, a 37- percent increase in title I. New Haven will go from almost $12 million to in excess of $16 million, a 33-percent increase in title I funding. These are Congressional Research Service estimates. That is significant, and those additional dollars are going to go a long way in serving the neediest children in two of the largest cities in the State of Connecticut. The issue is whether the appropriations will be sufficient this year and in the future to implement the reforms in this authorizing language. Again, I hope that will be the case in the coming years, that we will continue this bipartisan effort that marked this legislation and that the appropriations process will be not just bipartisan within Congress, but also between Congress and the executive. In closing, I also thank Shawn Maher, Lloyd Horwich, Grace Reef, and Patrick Rooney of my office who have done terrific jobs. From Senator Kennedy's office: Danica Petroshius, Jane Oates, Roberto Rodriguez, Michael Dannenberg, Dana Fiordaliso, and Ben Cope were tremendously helpful and supportive in listening to all of us and our staffs as we worked through the legislation. I thank Denzel McGuire and Townsend McNitt of Senator Gregg's staff, and I thank all the staff of other Senators from the conference as well as members of the House staff, all of whom should be commended. As I said earlier, their names are not well known, they are not elected to office, but we all know that without their Herculean efforts late at night, on weekends, and in lieu of vacations, we would not be here talking about this fine legislation that we will ask our colleagues to support. Sandy Kress of the White House and his staff, as well, deserve tremendous credit for staying at the table and seeing us through this process. I immensely commend my friend from Massachusetts for the tremendous effort he has made on this legislation and his significant accomplishment. He deserves a great deal of credit for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise to comment on important legislation passed by the Senate last evening, H.R. 1291, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001. This compromise agreement is the product of negotiations between the House and the Senate to craft an agreement between the Senate- and House-passed bills aimed at improving a wide array of benefits affecting veterans and their families. Included in this legislation is funding for improving educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill, enhancing veterans' compensation, and increasing home loan guarantees. This legislation also makes important investments in vocational training, education, and outreach programs to improve economic and educational opportunities for veterans who served our country. And, this legislation expands the definition of service- connected disability to include symptoms associated with ``Gulf War syndrome'' thereby enabling those veterans suffering from Gulf War- related symptoms to receive the compensation and care they deserve. Our nation's veterans have served our country with distinction and have sacrificed in the defense of our country. These veterans deserve benefits commensurate to their service to our country. In many ways, this legislation recognizes the sacrifices and commitment of our nation's veterans, and rightfully rewards their service and valor. I wanted to take some time to talk about a very important aspect of this legislation--Section 502--which is a provision pertaining to providing VA grave markers for deceased veterans. On December 7, 2001, the Senate unanimously passed S. 1088, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2001. This legislation included a provision which is based on legislation that I introduced this year and in the 106th Congress. It has the support of every major veterans group and a wide array of organizations including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, and the National Funeral Directors Association. It also has strong bipartisan support and enjoys the support of 21 of my Senate colleagues who cosponsored this legislation. The cosponsors include Senators Bingaman, Byrd, Conrad, Craig, DeWine, Dorgan, Feingold, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Miller, Santorum, Sessions, Stabenow, Stevens, and Voinovich. Section 402 of S. 1088 would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish a grave marker for the grave of a deceased veteran, irrespective of whether the grave has already been marked privately by the family. Current law--which dates back to the Civil War--does not allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide such a marker to already-marked graves. This arcane provision of federal law effectively precludes an estimated 25,000 families each year from appropriately commemorating their loved one's service to our country. Sadly, this number will only increase as our nation's veteran population ages. Indeed, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, some 1,500 American World War II veterans will pass away each day. With our aging population of veterans and with our nation's armed forces currently in harm's way in the war against terrorism, it is critically important to act promptly to secure this final tribute to suitably recognize the service of past and future veterans. This archaic law was originally intended to ensure that our fallen soldiers were not buried in unmarked graves. Of course, in today's age rarely, if ever, does a grave go unmarked. Prior to 1990, the surviving family of a deceased veteran could receive from the VA, after burial or cremation, partial reimbursement for a private headstone, a VA headstone, or a VA grave marker. The choice was solely up to the deceased veteran's family. However, budgetary tightening measures enacted in 1990 eliminated the reimbursement component and prevented the VA from providing an official headstone or grave marker when the family had already done so privately. This change in law precludes veterans' families from receiving an official VA grave marker if the family has already made private funeral arrangements. Suffice it to say, this provision of law is a major source of frustration for veterans families as they seek to honor their deceased loved one's service to our nation. At the time of a veteran's death, grief stricken family members invariably concern themselves with making necessary funeral arrangements and providing comfort and support to loved ones, not investigating the complexities of VA regulations. Nonetheless, for veterans' families that make private funeral arrangements prior to contacting the VA--such as purchasing a private headstone or marker--these families unwittingly forfeit their right to receive an official marker to honor their loved one's military service. This inequity in current law is unfair to those veterans who have served our country. Indeed, the denial of this benefit to veterans' families is one of the major sources, if not the major source, of complaints lodged with the VA. One of the countless families negatively effected by this provision of federal law is the Guzzo family of West Hartford, Connecticut. Back in the summer of 1998, I was approached by a young man named Tom Guzzo whose father Agostino Guzzo had recently passed away. While Agostino's service in the Army in the Philippines during World War II entitled him to full military honors from the VA, he was not eligible for an official VA marker because the family had already purchased a private marker. I became involved in this matter to correct what I believed to be a bureaucratic error, and I wrote to the then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs to resolve this matter. However, when the Secretary informed me that he was unable to furnish a VA grave marker to the Guzzos because of federal law, I introduced legislation to correct this inequity. Last year, the VA headstone and grave markers legislation that I authored unanimously passed the Senate as an amendment to the FY 2001 Department of Defense Authorization bill. However, the House-passed version of the Department of Defense Authorization bill did not include a comparable VA grave marker provision, and regrettably this measure was stripped in conference committee. Last week, once again, the Senate passed a provision based on legislation that I introduced in the Senate that would authorize the Secretary of the VA to furnish grave markers to deceased veterans, regardless of whether the grave is privately marked. And, once again, the House failed to adopt this reasonable provision, and this important measure was the subject of negotiations between the House and Senate to resolve this matter. The legislation before us today allows grave markers for veterans who pass away after the date of enactment. This is good news for veterans today. However, I continue to be concerned about the more than 5 million veterans who passed away over the past decade and whose families have tried in vain to obtain an official commemoration from the VA. My legislation was retroactive and would have assisted all affected veterans families back to 1990--when the aforementioned change in federal law occurred. As part of the compromise agreement between the Senate, House, and the Administration, this legislation would allow for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ``implement this provision in a flexible manner in light of requests for grave markers pre-dating this provision.'' While I am pleased that this compromise will allow for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to help the Guzzo family and may help other families who have struggled to receive official recognition for their deceased loved one's service through administrative means, this problem should have been addressed by a change in law--not through an ad-hoc, case-by-case, administrative procedure. Nonetheless, while this is not by any means a perfect agreement, it will allow deceased veterans' families to obtain this official grave marker in the future. I would like to take a moment to thank and recognize the tremendous leadership of Chairman Rockefeller with regard to this issue and to veterans issues in general. Chairman Rockefeller and his talented staff, in particular, were extremely helpful in working with me to ensure that the service of our Nation's veterans are suitably recognized. I would also like to commend Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and her efforts to reach a workable compromise with respect to this issue. Finally, I would like to commend and recognize the hard work and vigilance of the Guzzo family, particularly Tom Guzzo, in ensuring that Agostino Guzzo's service to our Nation--and the military service of countless other veterans--can from now on be recognized by the U.S. Government with this final, modest gesture from a grateful Nation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That is correct.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I reclaim my time. I guess the answer is no. We are going to have to go through this process, which I regret deeply because I do not believe the Senator from Idaho or the Senator from North Carolina or the Senator from Connecticut could say to you, Mr. President, with any certainty, what we are about to adopt here is in the best interest of our country or our individual men and women in uniform. Let me tell you what this amendment does, as I read it. This amendment would prohibit the United States from aiding in the prosecution of war criminals before the International Criminal Court, even if the criminal may have perpetrated crimes against America. We are prohibited by this amendment to participate in any prosecution. Second, it would limit U.S. participation in peacekeeping operations unless we get an ironclad commitment from the ICC that under no circumstances would U.S. persons be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore, this amendment would prohibit us from assisting any country that is party to the ICC. We provide assistance to countries all across the globe. Are we really, at this juncture, on a Friday afternoon, now going to bar all future assistance to countries that may participate in the formation of a court? As I said, back in September when this matter was first raised by the Senator from North Carolina, if the Treaty of Rome were put before this body, I would not vote for it. This body is not prepared to ratify that treaty. My concern is that if Senator Helms' amendment passes, this treaty may go forward and we will have no say in the process. As my colleagues have pointed out, 13 other nations may sign on to it. If they do, then all of the matters we pass here may be for little or any good at all. In fact, the very concerns that my colleague from Georgia, and others, have raised may, in fact, occur as a result of our nonparticipation in the drafting of this treaty. I think the United States should remain engaged in trying to fashion this Court in a way that would protect our men and women in uniform. That way at least we maximize the possibility that this Court is going to do what we would like it to do. I find it somewhat ironic that today is December 7, and 60 years ago today Pearl Harbor was attacked, as we all know. We listened to the eloquent remarks of our colleague from Hawaii earlier today. Four years later, the United States, at our urging, established a criminal court in a place called Nuremberg, with the cooperation of our allies, to prosecute those who had prosecuted the war. And we did it not just in Europe but also in the Pacific with a separate set of trials. In a sense, what this amendment would do is prohibit a future Nuremberg. I do not think, on this day of all days, considering, if you will, the role that we played in the post-World War II period of trying to build institutions where the rule of law prevailed, that the Senate, the body charged in the legislative branch with dealing with the international relations issues of our country, would adopt an amendment that says we are not going to participate in any kind of an international criminal court. I find it stunning that we can do that. I have offered a second- degree amendment which very simply would say that the Rome statute establishing the International Criminal Court would not enter into force, and that Congress has confidence in President Bush's ability to protect U.S. interests. The last thing it calls for is that the President shall report to the Congress on any additional legislative actions necessary to advance and protect U.S. interests as it relates to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. The Senator from Delaware has already pointed out, that we are trying to build transnational support for dealing with terrorism. The President has told us terrorists and their terrorist cells may exist in 60 countries. We are going to need a remarkable level of cooperation if we are going to successfully prosecute, capture, and try these individuals. We have already seen some of the difficulties related to the cooperation we are seeking to bring terrorists to justice. What is going to be the reaction of the international community if we adopt this amendment at the very hour we are reaching out our hands saying: Will you join with us as we seek to prosecute those who perpetrated the crimes on September 11? When we are telling those countries we are not going to participate in any peacekeeping operations, we are not going to provide any aid to any countries that participate or sign on to this treaty? This is what we should be doing: We should maintain a policy of fully supporting the due process rights of all U.S. citizens before foreign tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. We should continue to participate in negotiations of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court as an observer. At an assembly of states and parties, that is how you are going to effect the change--by being at the table, not by walking away from it. This is the United States of America. We are not some Third World country. We claim to be a leader in the world to do what we can to ensure the rules of procedure are in evidence and that elements of crime adopted by the International Criminal Court conform to the U.S. standards of due process formally adopted by the assembly. How is that going to occur if we adopt this amendment? We ought to seek a definition of the crime of aggression under the Rome statute that is consistent with international law and fully respects the right of self-defense of the United States and its allies. We ought to be there to ensure that U.S. interests are protected in negotiations over the remaining elements of the International Criminal Court to provide appropriate diplomatic legal assistance to U.S. citizens, especially the U.S. representatives and their dependents who face prosecution without full due process in any forum. That is what we ought to be doing. That is the role of a great nation. That is the role of the United States. That is what we did in the post-World War II period. We did not back away. We did not take an 18th or 19th century approach to the world. We engaged the world. In fact, I remember--my colleagues may not know all of the history-- but the choice of Nuremberg was not accidental. The choice could have been elsewhere. But Robert Jackson, who led the U.S. delegation prosecutorial team, selected Nuremberg because it was at Nuremberg that the Nazis wrote the laws that gave them the fake justification, if you will, to engage in the butchering that they brought on the world. It was at Nuremberg, Germany, where that happened. So Robert Jackson said: Why don't we go back to that very place and show the world that in civilized societies the rule of law prevails? There were people who argued forcefully that there should have been summary executions of the defendants at Nuremberg. Just execute them. That was the argument. Line them up against a wall and shoot them. Believe me, there were a lot of people who could make a strong claim that should have been the process. Millions of people lost their lives at the hands of those butchers. But wiser voices prevailed. They said: No, no. We are not going to allow the world to see us act, in a sense, little differently than those who committed the crimes. We are going to provide them with a tribunal, an international criminal court. The argument that was raised against it was not illegitimate. It was ex post facto. We established it after the fact, but I think most agree today that the Nuremberg tribunal was conducted fairly, that those who were brought before that criminal court were given an opportunity to present their cases, and were tried fairly. Most were convicted, most were executed; some actually were exonerated; some got lesser sentences. The point I am making is, today could there be another Nuremberg? Could we participate in a Nuremberg? Would we be advocating it? If we adopt this amendment, does that put us on the side of the Robert Jacksons in 1945, or does it put us on the side of retrenching and pulling back and not engaging? I honestly believe the Rome Treaty is flawed--terribly flawed--but I also believe my country ought not walk away from its responsibilities. We may be about to adopt an amendment, in my view, that takes us in the opposite direction. I am terribly disappointed we are even debating this amendment under these circumstances, a 28-page amendment involving all sorts of intricate matters that could complicate the role of our government at this very hour, putting us in a position of walking away from International Criminal Court. That is a dreadful mistake of historic proportions. What a tragedy, as we begin the 21st century, that this great Senate, given those who preceded us, those who fought for a Marshall plan, those who fought for the establishment of the United Nations, those who fought for the establishment of the Court at The Hague, those who fought to establish rules on human rights, those whose very seats we sit in, we would pass an amendment contrary to their legacies. What a legacy for us. We are involved in the greatest challenge that America has faced since the conflict of World War II, and we may be about to adopt an amendment that would set back all of the efforts that were made in the post-World War II period. I am ashamed, in a sense, that we are about to adopt language which would put our country in that position. At the appropriate time, I will ask my colleagues at least to consider my second-degree amendment which would allow for the President and others to report back what we might do and how we might address this issue, how we might affect the assembly that meets to establish the International Criminal Court, and how we can have some positive effect on what rules and regulations are going to be established there. That is what I would hope we would do. For those reasons, I urge the rejection of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from North Carolina, and support for my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. If I might reclaim my time.

Mr. DODD. I am prepared to yield back my time.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd amendment.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to do it but will take 30 seconds and I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I will not move to table the amendment of my friend from North Carolina but give it an up-or-down vote. There will be two separate votes. We may want to abbreviate the second vote. It could move matters along. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Dodd amendment?

Mr. DODD. I am prepared to yield my time back anyway, so I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to speak on a matter unrelated to the pending matter before this body.