Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. How much time do we have on both sides?

Mr. DODD. How long does the Senator from Louisiana wish to speak?

Mr. DODD. Would the Senator from North Carolina mind if our colleague from Louisiana spoke on a subject related to a matter before us?

Mr. DODD. Whatever time, we will work it out later. I say to my colleague, we have status of force agreements around the world. I am sure my colleague is aware, who served on the Armed Services Committee, that we have status of force agreements. There are U.S. servicemen all the time who are tried in local courts in other countries. We are not breaking ground here. We have known about those cases. We read about them, tragically, when they occur. We have those agreements whenever we place troops in various places--Japan being the most recent example. I don't mind your argument. But to suggest somehow that men and women in uniform are never subjected to any jurisdiction of a foreign land where the courts and the laws may be substantially different than what we have is not the law of the land is absurd. I am not interested in seeing laws adopted here that subject our men and women in uniform to foreign laws, but we do that already, it seems to me.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I strongly urge the authors of this amendment to consider the offer just made by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The Senator from Delaware pointed out, putting aside for a second whether or not you would disagree with the provisions in this amendment of 28 pages, that this is a proposal that has never really been debated or considered by committee. Something as far reaching as this is something this body, regardless of where one may stand ultimately on the question of an international criminal court, needs to be prudent in considering. None of us in this body ever wants to see our American men and women in uniform be placed in jeopardy anywhere. I do not know that anyone can tell you with any certainty whether or not that would be the case if this amendment were adopted. Sometimes when we get in the middle of a debate and start arguing these things, emotions get carried away and it gets harder. I would like to pause for a moment. If both sides agreed to wait a bit and consider this issue at a later date, I certainly would withdraw my amendment. I have a simple amendment which just asks the President to report to the Congress any additional legislative action he would deem necessary for us to deal with this issue that the Senator from North Carolina has placed before us. I do not know how my colleagues feel about that. But I urge them to consider debating this later. We can then debate this in a proper fashion rather than do it here this afternoon. I will note the absence of a quorum and take a minute to see if there is any possibility--does my colleague from Idaho wish to respond?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the point I was trying to make is we negotiated status agreements with these countries to guarantee and protect the rights of men and women in uniform. But in an international criminal court there will be negotiations--and we are walking away--to protect the very issues my colleague from Texas raises. By not participating, of course, without being at the table, we are not there to protect our people. We are making the assumption that with the adoption of this amendment, this is going to go away. It does not go away. That is the point I was making. Just as we negotiated status arrangements with individual countries on how our men and women in uniform will be treated so they will not lose their rights under local civilian courts, what I am suggesting this afternoon is that we ought to do the very same thing in negotiating at the table over this International Criminal Court. In not being there there is a far greater likelihood our men and women in uniform are going to be subjected to terrible rules. We have to be there, just as we had to negotiate the status agreements of how men and women in uniform are treated in Japan. We have seen cases there, and had we not negotiated agreements, Lord knows what would have happened to them. We did not say to Japan: You are going to take it or leave it or we are going to rip the people out of your courts. No. We sat down and said: This is how it will work. This is not a debate about who worries about men and women in uniform. It is whether or not we are going to have any kind of an international court institution in the 21st century. We are asking the world to join us in apprehending the Osama bin Ladens. We are building a coalition to work with us and then bring these people to trial. I have not raised this issue today, but my colleagues keep raising the issue that military tribunals is somehow part of this debate. I do not think there is any legal issue at all over whether we can have a military tribunal. That is beyond question. There ought to be and can be military tribunals. I can question the wisdom of establishing them in every case because I think there ought to be a selective use of it. I happen to believe having public trials demonstrating how we operate under the rule of law makes more sense, but I do not question the President's authority at all to establish a military tribunal, if that is what he decides to do. That is not the issue. We are going to be asking countries to extradite people, to bring them here and try them in these tribunals. At this very hour our State Department is reaching out to get the world to cooperate with us, we are walking away from the International Criminal Court. Every member of NATO has signed and ratified this agreement; every member of the European Union has ratified it, not to mention all of our allies all over the globe. For the life of me, I do not understand why we are going to adopt a 28-page amendment which, as I pointed out earlier, makes it so we are not involved in peacekeeping forces, we cut off aid to countries, we cannot participate in these courts where even U.S. citizens have been attacked. I do not understand why at 5:15 on a Friday night my colleagues want to adopt a 28-page amendment when we do not understand, in my view, the full implications of this amendment. Again, I give my colleagues a chance to vote on an alternative which asks the President to send a full report to Congress on additional legislative matters we can take to responsibly protect our service men and women. By the way, it is not just service men and women who we should be protecting. I have great affection for those who wear the uniform, but citizens who do not work for the Federal Government, do not work for the State Department, who may be traveling, ought to be protected as well. My colleagues today are talking about service men and women, and they deserve a special status, but today U.S. citizens can also be caught up in this. We travel a lot. How many people travel all over the globe every day to expand markets so we can employ people in this country? It seems to me we are not including them at all. The only people who are included are Government employees. Do not U.S. citizens also deserve some protection in these courts? I had hoped this amendment would be withdrawn. I really hoped it would be, and then we would come back and try to fashion something we all can embrace. Instead, there seems to be a desire to divide us on this question. Again I make the point, if my colleagues really believe there ought to be no international criminal court, then they ought to support the amendment of my friend from North Carolina. If my colleagues believe there is a value in this court, they should reject Senator Helms' amendment and support mine. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second on that point?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will take a couple minutes to respond to just a couple things, if I could. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his eloquent comments, and my colleague from Pennsylvania, who is far more knowledgeable than the Senator from Connecticut on these matters generally, and has offered some very wise counsel on how we ought to proceed. I think having this debate helps. I am not suggesting it does not. But I am deeply concerned about proceeding with an amendment of some 28 pages now. I do not know if anyone can tell you with any certainty what it does. I am concerned about what I think it does. It may do more than I think it does, which would worry me. I have offered, and will describe shortly, a substitute or alternative amendment which we will vote on which lays out a framework by which we might approach this issue of the Rome Treaty in a constructive way. I guess it is a matter of choice. If you take the view that under no circumstances should there be an International Criminal Court, you should vote for Senator Helms' amendment. I am not arguing there are those who do not have a point of view that there should be no International Criminal Court. That is a legitimate point of view. If your view is there probably should be, but it ought to be set up in a framework that makes sense, that guarantees the kind of protections that my colleagues have talked about today, that would allow for the civilized world to prosecute international thugs, then, it seems to me, we bear responsibility to help that along and not retard it here by taking the position of adopting language which makes it impossible for us to participate in the creation of such an institution. That is my point. There are details of it where I see us taking a giant step backwards today. At the very moment, we are trying to get people around the globe to understand that our value system, our idea of justice, is a good system and that we would like to see those values incorporated in an international court. But it is awfully difficult to advance the cause of your own values if you are not in the room to make the case. I do not want to rely on some of the countries that I see on this list that have ratified this treaty to advance that cause. Now some I have great faith in. As I pointed out, 139 countries have signed this. Now I am told some 42 countries have ratified it, every member of the European Union, 18 of the 19 members of NATO. My friend from Arizona cited a couple of countries that I know none of us bear much allegiance to in any sense at all. But it is also worthwhile to point out to our colleagues that our NATO allies have signed this. They have troops that go into these conflict areas. Are they all wrong? Are they all wrong? I do not think so. Is it all right, this treaty? No. I will repeat again, if that treaty arrived through that door this afternoon, and we had an up-or-down vote on it, I would vote against it because I think it is flawed. But I do not think it is so flawed that we cannot improve it and make it work for our interests. You cannot play on the international field and walk away from this issue. I guess that is the line of distinction I would make. My colleagues know that I have a great sense of pride about my father. My father served as the Executive Trial Counsel at Nuremberg. I cannot tell you the times I heard him say: Had there been an international court in the 1920s and 1930s, just maybe, he said, just maybe--he never directly predicted with absolute certainty--but just maybe Adolf Hitler might have been stopped before he caused the destruction he did in Europe because there was no place to really bring the issue. And so his advance--this crushing of neighboring countries and the destruction of human life--went on unabated until the United States and our allies successfully prosecuted the end of World War II. But had there been a place, had there been someplace in the world that we could have brought an Adolf Hitler when he first started, my father always thought, just maybe--just maybe--we might have saved millions of lives. So when my friends today say this court is flawed, and therefore we are going to enact legislation now that penalizes those who are trying to make it work, I do not understand the logic of that. I really do not. It seems to me, if we are worried about our men and women in uniform, the idea somehow that this institution, this international court, flawed as it is, is not going to exist, is terribly naive. And the very concerns that are being expressed about our men and women in uniform become more real if this court ends up looking like its opponents claim it will. There is nothing here that will prohibit that servicemen and women from being caught in that snare. At home in the United States, existing law prohibits the extradition or transfer of U.S. citizens to the International Criminal Court. That is already the law of the land. So if you are in the United States, you cannot be extradited under existing law. But the idea that somehow because we adopt this amendment--which causes us to step away from all this, walk away from our involvement-- that it is going to somehow give greater protection to that private or corporal or sergeant out there in some God-forsaken land defending our interests is naive. In fact, we put that individual at greater risk because we are not in the room trying to shape what this court looks like. If, in fact, someone does get apprehended, and they end up in a kangaroo court, we will be responsible, in a way, because we walked away from the responsibility of trying to shape that institution. You cannot complain about the makeup of the institution if you do not participate in the creation of it. We have been offered a chair at that table, and we are walking away. And when you do, then, it seems to me, you bear some responsibility for what that institution ultimately adopts, and whether or not it affects the citizens of your country. Stay at the table. Try to change it. At the end, you may not be able to. Then it is their fault. But you cannot walk away from the table, and then have your people caught, and then say: That is not my responsibility. That is not a legitimate answer to this question. So the Senator from Pennsylvania has offered what appears to be sound advice. That is what our amendment will offer, in a sense. Very briefly, I will read the amendment to my colleagues. There are certain findings in the first section. It is very brief. It says: (1) The Rome Statute establishing an International Criminal Court will not enter into force for several years: (2) The Congress has great confidence in President Bush's ability to effectively protect US interests and the interests of American citizens and service members as it relates to the International Criminal Court; and (3) The Congress believes that Slobodan Milosovic, Saddam Hussein or any other individual who commits crimes against humanity should be brought to justice and that the President should have sufficient flexibility to accomplish that goal, including the ability to cooperate with foreign tribunals and other international legal entities that may be established for that purpose on a case by case basis. And lastly, it calls for a report: The President shall report to the Congress on any additional legislative actions necessary to advance and protect US interests as it relates to the establishment of the International Criminal Court or the prosecution of crimes against humanity. That, seems to me, to be a more logical way to proceed than some 28- page amendment that has us cutting off aid, not participating in peacekeeping, not allowing us to even participate in proceedings when U.S. citizens or other people have committed crimes against our own country. Those are things that at least appear to be the case on the face of the amendment as it is offered by my colleague from North Carolina. Lastly--and then I will yield the floor for a moment--I want to read a letter from Elie Wiesel. I think all of our colleagues know of Elie Wiesel, the Nobel laureate, distinguished writer, humanitarian, who was himself a survivor of the Holocaust. When a similar piece of legislation was being considered by the other body, Elie Wiesel wrote the following letter: Dear Ben and Sam-- Chairman and ranking member of the committee in the other body-- I too am concerned with the safety of United States servicemen abroad. But I am confident that we will be able to protect them. And so, bringing a war criminal to justice remains urgent. Fifty years ago, the United States led the world in the prosecution of Nazi leaders for the atrocities of World War II. The triumph of Nuremburg was not only that individuals were held accountable for their crimes, but that they were tried in a court of law supported by the community of nations. Before you today in committee is a bill that would erase this legacy of US leadership by ensuring that the US will never again join the community of nations to hold accountable those who commit war crimes and genocide. A vote for this legislation would signal US acceptance of impunity for the world's worst atrocities. For the memory of the victims of the past genocide and war crimes, I urge you to use your positions . . . on the International Relations Committee to see that this legislation is not passed. It is signed ``Elie Wiesel.'' I will yield the floor at this point and listen to the remainder of the arguments. I urge my colleagues, when the time comes, to consider the proposal we will lay before them which allows us to go on record expressing a concern and a desire to have this Court work better. If you think there ought to be no court whatsoever, that there is no legitimate purpose for an international criminal court, I urge you to vote for the Helms amendment. If you think there is an importance in the 21st century for a court to exist and that the United States ought to participate in the shaping of that court, I urge Members to support the amendment we will offer. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. I know the Senator from Texas wants to be heard.

Mr. DODD. Might I just say to my colleague as well, the majority whip said 60 minutes. We may not need 60 minutes. I do not know how much time the Senator from North Carolina would like, but I do not imagine 30 minutes will be necessary on our side. So maybe because of the hour, we may terminate debate a little earlier and yield back time and actually vote earlier.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his remarks. I note again our staffs are working. I want these remarks to be seen as constructive and positive. We appreciate immensely the work being conducted by my friend from Kentucky and my friend from Missouri and their staffs who have spent a lot of time on this issue. It has not gone smoothly. It has had its ups and downs. It has been a roller coaster ride. I hope when the process is over, sooner rather than later, we will present the Senate a bill for which they can be proud.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished majority leader on this issue. From the very beginning, he has been a very strong and vocal advocate of this body and the Congress of the United States in fashioning a piece of legislation that would address not just the events of last year. As the majority leader properly points out, this was not a one-time event in one jurisdiction. In the consistent reports, whether by MIT, CalTech, or the General Accounting Office, and surveys done by the media, that analyzed the election last year in Florida, all of these organizations that analyzed it, including the Carter Commission, the story has ultimately been about who wins or loses. That has been the headline. The real story is about the pathetic and tragic situation of our electoral system of this country. It didn't happen in one event and in one State. It is in all 50 States--some worse than others--and has been going on for years. So those of us who have been involved in this issue over the last several months, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, members of the Rules Committee, have been stalwarts in this effort going back to the earliest days in January, cosponsoring legislation, reaching out, trying to fashion some proposals that would make the Federal Government a true partner with our States and localities in trying to correct a wrong that is in desperate need of being addressed. Senator McConnell of Kentucky is the ranking member of the Rules Committee, as the majority leader knows. He has a deep interest in this subject matter. I want the majority leader to know that Senator McConnell and his staff--Senator Kit Bond of Missouri and his staff-- brings a separate set of issues that he is particularly worried about, the issue of fraud. We have been working with Senator Schumer's staff, our staff. There have been serious negotiations, I say to the leader, over the last number of weeks, actually going back even further than that, but most intensely in the last few weeks. We have not yet arrived at a product we can present to this body that is a bipartisan proposal. I will let Senator Schumer speak for himself, but it is my fervent desire, I say to the leader and to my friends on the other side-- Senator McConnell and Senator Bond, obviously, they do not need me to speak for them, but I know it is their desire as well to fashion legislation of which all of us can be proud. I know the events of September 11 have obviously taken over the agenda and debate. It is hard to imagine a year ago what we were in the middle of. We were in the middle of one of the worst debacles in terms of a national election in the history of the United States, and it was not just about Florida. It was in almost every jurisdiction. In my State alone, we have not bought a new voting machine in 26 years, and the company that made them no longer exists. We had an election in one of my communities in Connecticut a few weeks ago where the incumbent officeholder did not receive a single vote in his own hometown because the machines did not record them, which shows us we can go anywhere we want and we will find this system is in need of work. I say to the leader I appreciate immensely his comments. We are pretty close to getting an agreement. I hope we can. I also take to heart what he has said, that we have been patient in trying to work this out. My hope is we can come to the Senate with a bill that involves ideas and thoughts that we can all live with that will address the problems. I also appreciate his comments that if that is not possible we will come to the Senate with a bill to debate this issue and bring people to the table. We cannot go on and not address this issue. The majority leader has said it far more eloquently than I can. It would be a travesty of significant proportions if this Congress were to convene and adjourn in the wake of what happened in the election of 2000 in this country and not step up to the plate and offer the kind of assistance our jurisdictions so desperately need. For those reasons, I thank the leader for his comments, and I yield to my colleague from New York.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleagues Senators Kerry, McCain, Clinton, Cantwell, Snowe, Mikulski, Boxer, and Hutchison to submit a resolution expressing the sense of Senate that women from all ethnic groups should participate in the economic and political reconstruction of Afghanistan. This is an issue we feel strongly about, and it is my hope that the Senate will soon take up this important issue. Let me also thank Congresswoman Connie Morella for her work on this matter and for introducing companion legislation in House. As you know, since the Taliban seized control of Kabul in 1996, women and girls living under this regime have been subjected daily to an array of human rights violations, from lack of access to education and health care to outright violence. They have been denied equal protection under the law, and have struggled to survive without the same professional or financial opportunities afforded the men in their country. Certainly, even before the rise of the Taliban, Afghanistan was in many respects a country in crisis, facing drought, ethnic conflict, and uncertain leadership. It was the women and children of this troubled country that bore the brunt of this suffering. However, despite these many hardships, the women of Afghanistan persevered, and played a large and meaningful role in Afghani society. Prior to the rule of the Taliban, women had the right to vote, served as cabinet ministers, enjoyed rich professional careers, and indeed constituted a majority of country's lawyers, doctors, teachers, and business owners. Women participated in every aspect of Afghani life, and were fully integrated into its cultural, political, and economic fabric. However, since the Taliban regime came to power, conditions for women and children have worsened drastically. Stripped of their basic human rights and freedoms, they have fought hard to provide for themselves and their families, and to weather the many abuses suffered at the hands of the oppressive fundamentalist regime. Many women studied and taught in secret, determined to retain something of the life they knew before they were forced to retreat behind the burka. In response to this humanitarian crisis, United States policy in Afghanistan has been guided, in part, by overwhelming concerns about these and other gross human rights violations. Now that we are in midst of military action against the Taliban in response to the horrific attacks on American civilians on September 11, we have the opportunity to help restore to the Afghani women the basic freedoms and opportunities which should be available to all citizens of the world. In addition, I believe that long-term stability in Afghanistan is contingent upon a full and expeditious renewal of these rights. The people of Afghanistan, both men and women, believe overwhelmingly that there is a place for Afghani women in Islamic society that affords them opportunities for meaningful professional and political roles in the rebuilding of their country. The reconstruction of Afghanistan, both politically and culturally, will require the insight and dedication of all of the people of Afghanistan, and women must not be excluded from this vital process. They must be included as equal partners as this nation begins to recover and rebuild. In many ways September 11 has become a turning point for the United States. It has been one of sorrow, and it has been a wake-up call that we need to guard our rights and our way of life. But it also an opportunity for the yoke of oppression to be once and for all lifted from the Afghani people, particularly the women and children who have suffered so much over the last decade. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I would like to draw attention to what I believe is an unconstitutional amendment that was recently added to the final conference report of the FY02 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act. This amendment, which was first offered by Senator Craig on September 10 in the Senate version of the bill, would prohibit any U.S. funds from being used ``for cooperation with, or assistance or other support to, the International Criminal Court or the Preparatory Commission.'' The Craig amendment, which was opposed by the administration, seeks to prevent our government from having a role in shaping the definition of the crime of aggression and other key issues pertaining to the International Criminal Court, ICC. It is my belief that this attempt to curtail the power of the President to negotiate treaties is unconstitutional and I urge the administration to remain engaged in a process vital to our country's national security. In addition to highlighting the constitutional concerns raised by this amendment, I would also like this opportunity to raise a broader concern. The legislative maneuvering that led to the adoption of this amendment follows European Union and German requests that our government refrain from adopting anti-ICC legislation. In late October the Belgium Foreign Minister Louis Michel wrote on behalf of the European Union to Senator Daschle and Secretary of State Colin Powell, expressing the EU's strong support for the ICC. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer wrote to the Secretary of State directly on October 31, noting that, ``In view of the international effort against terrorism . . . it is particularly important for the United States and the European Union to act in accord in this field too.'' He continued, ``The future International Criminal Court will be a valuable instrument for combating the most serious crimes. It will provide us with an opportunity to fight with judicial means crimes such as the mass murder perpetrated by terrorists in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.'' While Members of the Senate may have real questions and concerns pertaining to the ICC, now is not the time to be pushing legislation that undercuts the administration's efforts to work with our closest allies in building a strong coalition against terrorism. In addition, the President's recent order allowing military tribunals to be created for trials involving members of al Qaeda suggests that a long-term fight against terrorism will include a variety of legal structures ranging from Lockerbie type tribunals to the International Criminal Court. It is thus imperative that our government remains engaged in the development of the ICC. I strongly hope that the Bush administration will do that.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, in introducing legislation today to strengthen our Nation's ability to protect children during times of terrorism and bioterrorism. It's a terrible thing that we have to be here to talk about how to protect children from terrorism. But, as all of us know only too well, the terrorist incidents of September 11 have changed the world for all of us. In order to ensure that the needs of children are not overlooked as a national terrorism response package is drafted, we are introducing this legislation today specifically geared toward the needs of children. Our bill would: strengthen emergency and rescue services for children; ensure that all needed medicines in the case of bioterrorist attack can be safely used for children; ensure that the mental health needs of children directly affected by terrorist and bioterrorist attacks are addressed; and, enable the Secretary of HHS to determine and respond to other unique needs that children may have related to terrorism. Shockingly, not all ambulances, hospitals and emergency personnel are prepared to handle children's emergencies, let alone emergencies related to terrorism. In fact, fewer than half of all hospitals with emergency departments have the equipment necessary to stabilize seriously injured children. Our bill will expand the Emergency Medical Services for Children Grant Program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those first on the ground need to be prepared to deal with the specific needs of children in any type of terrorist or bioterrorist attack. Children are especially vulnerable to the chemical and biological agents that could be deployed in a terrorist attack. Nerve gas agents, such as Sarin gas for example, are denser than water and concentrate lower to the ground, in the breathing zone of children. And the more permeable skin of newborns and children puts them at risk of greater exposure to toxins that may be absorbed. It is crucial to secure information on dosage, possible side effects and the effectiveness of various agents in our children. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate unanimously passed the reauthorization of a law I authored with Senator DeWine to address the appalling lack of pediatric information about the drugs we used for our kids. The law, which has been an unparalleled success, provides a market incentive for drug companies to test their products for use in kids and to create kid- friendly drug formulations. Our re-authorization of this law will ensure that all approved drugs that are identified as important for children will get studied, either by the manufacturer or by a third party with pediatric clinical expertise. These third party studies will be paid for using private dollars from an NIH Foundation or using the $20 million authorized in the bill for this purpose. Today, we are asking the Secretary to do the same for medicines that can be used to protect our kids in a bioterrorist attack. Our proposal authorizes funding to ensure that the products that are important for children will get studied by manufacturers and by qualified third parties to determine how a child's body breaks down and absorbs the medicine, potential risks, and effectiveness. Without adequate information about how a drug works in kids of different ages and sizes, children are more likely to be under- or over-dosed or to experience dangerous side effects. By instructing the Secretary to contract our needed studies, we can ensure that we get vital information on the medicines needed most for our kids. Since September 11 our children have been faced with images and emotions that are difficult for them to understand and deal with. They have seen airplanes crashing into places where people work, they have seen people fleeing from collapsing buildings, they have family members searching and grieving for missing loved ones, they have heard about people being poisoned and dying from the mail. All of this is beyond belief. These are very complicated and stressful times for all of us, but especially for children. Children sense the anxiety and tension in adults around them. And, like adults, children experience the same feelings of helplessness and lack of control that disaster-related stress can bring about. Unlike adults, however, children have little experience to help them place their current situation into perspective. Our proposal authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide immediate emergency mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services to those children residing in communities directly affected by terrorism. This new authority will double the amount of emergency funding for mental health services and ensure that children's mental health needs are specifically addressed. This new initiative will provide approximately $17.5 million in emergency funds for children's mental health services. To deal with other unique needs of children, we provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with broad authority to allocate emergency crisis response grants. Such grants could be made at the Secretary's discretion to schools, child care centers, Head Start centers, or other entities dealing with children to assist in developing evacuation plans, in training personnel to understand children's needs related to terrorism, and how to communicate effectively with children and parents about terrorism. Millions of children spend more than half their waking hours with teachers and other caregivers. These professionals must be able to understand what children are going through and be prepared to help them get through it. As we've seen over the last few weeks, in practice, this is not always as easy to do as it sounds. The President has asked that all Americans get back to normal. It is our responsibility to provide our children affected by these tragic events with the best tools and resources to get back to normal. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of our legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, in introducing legislation today to strengthen our Nation's ability to protect children during times of terrorism and bioterrorism. It's a terrible thing that we have to be here to talk about how to protect children from terrorism. But, as all of us know only too well, the terrorist incidents of September 11 have changed the world for all of us. In order to ensure that the needs of children are not overlooked as a national terrorism response package is drafted, we are introducing this legislation today specifically geared toward the needs of children. Our bill would: strengthen emergency and rescue services for children; ensure that all needed medicines in the case of bioterrorist attack can be safely used for children; ensure that the mental health needs of children directly affected by terrorist and bioterrorist attacks are addressed; and, enable the Secretary of HHS to determine and respond to other unique needs that children may have related to terrorism. Shockingly, not all ambulances, hospitals and emergency personnel are prepared to handle children's emergencies, let alone emergencies related to terrorism. In fact, fewer than half of all hospitals with emergency departments have the equipment necessary to stabilize seriously injured children. Our bill will expand the Emergency Medical Services for Children Grant Program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those first on the ground need to be prepared to deal with the specific needs of children in any type of terrorist or bioterrorist attack. Children are especially vulnerable to the chemical and biological agents that could be deployed in a terrorist attack. Nerve gas agents, such as Sarin gas for example, are denser than water and concentrate lower to the ground, in the breathing zone of children. And the more permeable skin of newborns and children puts them at risk of greater exposure to toxins that may be absorbed. It is crucial to secure information on dosage, possible side effects and the effectiveness of various agents in our children. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate unanimously passed the reauthorization of a law I authored with Senator DeWine to address the appalling lack of pediatric information about the drugs we used for our kids. The law, which has been an unparalleled success, provides a market incentive for drug companies to test their products for use in kids and to create kid- friendly drug formulations. Our re-authorization of this law will ensure that all approved drugs that are identified as important for children will get studied, either by the manufacturer or by a third party with pediatric clinical expertise. These third party studies will be paid for using private dollars from an NIH Foundation or using the $20 million authorized in the bill for this purpose. Today, we are asking the Secretary to do the same for medicines that can be used to protect our kids in a bioterrorist attack. Our proposal authorizes funding to ensure that the products that are important for children will get studied by manufacturers and by qualified third parties to determine how a child's body breaks down and absorbs the medicine, potential risks, and effectiveness. Without adequate information about how a drug works in kids of different ages and sizes, children are more likely to be under- or over-dosed or to experience dangerous side effects. By instructing the Secretary to contract our needed studies, we can ensure that we get vital information on the medicines needed most for our kids. Since September 11 our children have been faced with images and emotions that are difficult for them to understand and deal with. They have seen airplanes crashing into places where people work, they have seen people fleeing from collapsing buildings, they have family members searching and grieving for missing loved ones, they have heard about people being poisoned and dying from the mail. All of this is beyond belief. These are very complicated and stressful times for all of us, but especially for children. Children sense the anxiety and tension in adults around them. And, like adults, children experience the same feelings of helplessness and lack of control that disaster-related stress can bring about. Unlike adults, however, children have little experience to help them place their current situation into perspective. Our proposal authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide immediate emergency mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services to those children residing in communities directly affected by terrorism. This new authority will double the amount of emergency funding for mental health services and ensure that children's mental health needs are specifically addressed. This new initiative will provide approximately $17.5 million in emergency funds for children's mental health services. To deal with other unique needs of children, we provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with broad authority to allocate emergency crisis response grants. Such grants could be made at the Secretary's discretion to schools, child care centers, Head Start centers, or other entities dealing with children to assist in developing evacuation plans, in training personnel to understand children's needs related to terrorism, and how to communicate effectively with children and parents about terrorism. Millions of children spend more than half their waking hours with teachers and other caregivers. These professionals must be able to understand what children are going through and be prepared to help them get through it. As we've seen over the last few weeks, in practice, this is not always as easy to do as it sounds. The President has asked that all Americans get back to normal. It is our responsibility to provide our children affected by these tragic events with the best tools and resources to get back to normal. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of our legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I commend my colleague from Florida for a very excellent statement regarding airport security. As many colleagues here, over the weekend, I, too, traveled and met with some airport administrators and officials. Regardless of where you are in the country, the message is the same. These are people who don't particularly wear any labels of Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, whatever those labels may mean to some, but to most Americans out there, the issue of being more secure on something as fundamental as air travel is basic. They don't understand why the Republican House leadership has refused to join the 100 Members of this body and the overwhelming majority of people involved in the airline industry in getting federalization of these workers and making airports as secure as possible. I served in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic and many people were going back home there on that flight yesterday. One young man served in the Navy, and he just received his leave and was going back to visit his parents from the Dominican Republic. Another woman who escaped the World Trade Center tragedy lost her life on the flight yesterday. Obviously, we don't make any equation of terrorist acts to what happened yesterday upon the preliminary information. But it heightens the security that people want to have in air travel. We call, again today, on the Republican leadership in the House to change their minds and adopt the bill embraced to this body 100-0 and offer the public the security they deserve. The Senator from Florida made an excellent point.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to take a minute and talk about the matter before the Senate, which is the economic recovery package, the stimulus package. I say to my colleagues here, and to others, that, again, this is one where the President --I know he is meeting with President Putin, and the subject matter is obviously the war against terrorism in central Asia. But it is also going to be very important in the prosecution of that war that we convey to the American public our deep concern about the present condition of our economy, and that there is clearly a recession. The unemployment numbers are getting worse. Last month we had the highest increase in unemployment in 20 years. There is every indication that this economic downturn will be with us for some time. We have seen a staggering number of people lose their jobs, particularly at the lower end of the economic spectrum. I hope the President will be asking us to extend unemployment benefits for these people who have lost their jobs. First of all, it is a wonderful way to provide some stimulation because these are dollars that must be spent. The people on unemployment don't have the luxury, having lost their jobs, of opening up a savings account. They are trying to provide for their needs on a daily basis. Those extended unemployment benefits are dollars that end up in the marketplace. If demand is one of the issues --and I believe it is, based on the economists who have shared their thoughts with us-- then clearly those who would receive these unemployment benefits are going to contribute to stimulating the economy. Providing health care benefits--again, none of us subscribes to the notion that people who are unemployed or lose their jobs are anywhere near as much a victim as those victims on September 11, at the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon, or aboard that airplane in Pennsylvania. But they are all victims. We know that what happened on September 11 contributed to the economic difficulties that existed on September 10. We know, for instance, that airline travel is down some 20, 30 percent. We know, as a result of that, the hotel industry and the restaurant industry-- which, by the way, are the largest employers in America; some 17 million people work in the service industries these are the ones who have been hit immediately. And the people who set tables, who wash dishes, wait on tables, who clean hotel rooms, who work in some of the more difficult and lower paying jobs in the country have lost their work. These are family members, heads of families, and they are out there wondering whether or not the next job is going to be available for them. So they are, in a sense, victims because, clearly, the events of September 11 have impacted their lives. Many of us are suggesting as part of this economic package that we include extending unemployment benefits and health care, and we say to those people and their families that we wish we could provide you with a job tomorrow. We can't. We wish we could produce one for you immediately. We can't do that. But we can reach out to you and say during the next number of weeks we are going to provide extended unemployment benefits to you and see to it that States get back some dollars from Medicaid and the COBRA program, so you can have health care coverage during this time of difficulty. I don't think that is an exaggerated or excessive request. I hoped, frankly, that the request would be made of us to do this, rather than we making a request of the President and others to support this. This is America. We are coming together as a people. Everybody who is hurt and has suffered as a result of these tragic events deserves an extended hand to try to see if we can't lift them up. I was so impressed yesterday while watching the film clips of the people in New York. Average citizens were racing to help the firemen, helping to extend the hoses to try to put out the fires in the communities that were devastated by the downed aircraft. What a wonderful photograph, in a sense, during a time of tragedy. Average citizens--not firemen or policemen but people in civilian clothes--were running along the streets, grabbing firehoses and helping the departments reach the flames to try to save lives and property. That is my America. That is the America I know. I want to see my Congress and my national leadership be as those people in the streets of Queens yesterday who were racing along to help out during a time of tragedy. That is what this economic package we have crafted tries to do. It is short term, it is focused, it is fiscally responsible, and it tries to help people who are suffering. That is all we are trying to do--give a tax rebate, a tax cut for the folks who didn't get it last spring so they might have additional dollars in their pockets to provide for family needs, and to see to it that we might invest some dollars as well in hardening up our infrastructure in the country. Put aside September 11 for a minute. How many times have we heard over the last number of years that if you don't maintain the basic infrastructure of your country--roads, bridges, mass transit systems-- economic growth suffers? So this bill will also include some dollars to try to harden up this infrastructure so we will be better prepared to withstand the kinds of terrorist attacks that could occur that would put those pieces of infrastructure in harm's way. This bill will provide some resources for that. Of course, it puts people to work. Imagine that; we might put some people to work by passing this bill. That is basically the package. It is designed to provide unemployment benefits, health care benefits, dollars for infrastructure, and a tax cut for people who did not get one so they might not only get a break themselves but also contribute to the demand side of the equation which is necessary if this economic stimulus package is going to provide additional lift during this time of difficulty. I hope in these next couple of days we can come together. We have done it before in the last few weeks. These are not excessive requests. This is a fiscally responsible plan. We have done so much in the last 10 years to put our economy on a footing that none of us imagined would ever be the case: that we would actually be in a situation where we would be talking about eliminating the national debt if we wanted. How many of us have seen those clocks in almost every city that rapidly show the increase of the national debt? Yet over the last 10 years as the result of some very fine leadership in Congress, by the Federal Reserve, and obviously the White House, we were able to make a difference to put this country on a path many people thought we could not get on again. As we talk about an economic recovery package, it must be fiscally responsible. If we are going to spend ourselves once again into huge debt, I cannot imagine anything more that Osama bin Laden or his supporters would like to see than us not only weakened from their attacks on September 11 but that we would weaken our economy either because we made excessive tax cuts or spending additions that were unwise. As most Americans, I am stunned. I represent the most affluent State in the country, and certainly many of my constituents would benefit directly. They are some of the top income earners in the country. I do not hear my constituents talking about the need for a $1.3 million tax break for IBM or the Ford Motor Company as a result of repealing the alternative minimum tax. Where is the sense of contribution? Are they like the people in the streets of Queens running and dragging those hoses along to help put out the fires, somebody who is probably making $20,000 or $30,000? Some of them are retired. They were racing along to help stop a fire. How about that coming out of the top income earners in the country to help put out the fire in a sense? That is all we are asking.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I will wrap up by saying I hope we can find some common ground this week and do what the American public expects of us. I would so much love to hear my President ask me to extend these unemployment benefits and provide health care. Presidents in the past have done it. This President is doing a wonderful job in the battle in central Asia. All of us appreciate his work and the work of his team. I know he is occupied with that now, but we also would like him to appreciate the battle going on at home. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, November 15, at 9 a.m., in SR-301, Russell Senate Office Building, to receive testimony from the Capitol Police Board on the Perimeter Security Plan and on matters involving security for the Capitol complex. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Kennie Gill at the Rules Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, the distinguished Senator from Texas, and the distinguished Senator from Illinois for allowing me to speak for 7 minutes on an unrelated subject matter. It was 1 year ago on this very day that we had a national election. It was on November 7 of last year when 105 million of our fellow citizens went to the polls to elect a President of the United States, Congress, and a variety of governorships and State legislative offices. As we all recall, although it is hard to imagine it has been a year, it was a very controversial election, one that went on for a month before a final decision was made by the Supreme Court. According to the CalTech-MIT report, as many as 4 million to 6 million people actually showed up to vote that day, but for a variety of reasons in States across the country, were told they could not vote or they voted and their vote was not counted. That is according to CalTech and MIT. According to that same report, these votes were lost due to a variety of reasons that have existed for a long time. They did not just happen in one place or in one election: Faulty equipment, confusing ballots, registration mixups, flawed polling place operations, absentee ballot problems, and the list goes on. It was not about one State. We all focused on Florida, but the fact remains, in the other 49 States there were problems to varying degrees. Again, these problems were not limited to one State. In fact, the General Accounting Office found that 57 percent of voting jurisdictions nationwide experienced major problems conducting the November 7, 2000, elections. These problems were not limited to one election. In fact, many of these are systemic problems with our election systems that have existed for years. For example, over 11 million Americans who are blind or have a hand mobility disability have never been able to cast a secret ballot. Not a single ballot in America is in braille. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office, of the 120,000 polling places in America, 50,000 of them are physically inaccessible to the disabled. Despite the fact we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, there still is a staggering number of our voting places that are not accessible. We could spend a lot of time talking about what happened a year ago, but I want to take the few minutes available to me to strike a more positive note. Senator Bond of Missouri, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, myself, and Senator Schumer of New York are all working to put together a bill to bring to the Senate in the coming weeks. We are working on a compromise proposal that will allow us to try to fix the problems that existed in the year 2000 elections. This is not about the past, but about the future of our democracy. As Thomas Paine once said, the right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. Certainly we ought to be able to get this right in the 21st century. To reach that goal, those of us who are interested in the issue have been working together to come up with a bipartisan proposal that will meet the concerns and objectives of all of us in this Chamber and, hopefully, in the other body as well. On August 2, the Rules Committee, which I chair, approved a bill which does three major things: It creates a temporary commission to study election reform issues and issue ``best practice'' recommendations. It creates a grant program to provide States and localities with Federal funds to acquire updated voting systems and technology, improve voter registration systems, and educate voters and poll workers. It establishes three minimum Federal requirements for Federal elections and authorizes Federal funding for these requirements. These three requirements provide for: Federal standards for voting machines and technology, provisional voting, and distribution of sample ballots and voting instructions. There are a lot of ideas for improving our system that can be incorporated. It is not about ideology, it is about what reforms need to be made to enhance the voting systems of our country. Our staffs are meeting. Senator Bond is deeply interested in the fraud issue. He has said what I think is the best line about the election process. Senator Bond says: Voting ought to be easy, and cheating ought to be hard. He is exactly right, and his efforts to try to deal with the fraud issues are ones I welcome. I am hopeful we can weave reforms which address these issues into a bill to which we all will be willing to lend our names. I intend to continue to work with those Members who are interested in this subject. We do not have the answer yet, but I did not want this day to pass when I know there will be a lot of discussion about what happened a year ago. Obviously, the events of September 11 threw the entire agenda of the Congress off its predictable path. We are scrambling to get back to some of these issues that need to be addressed. For Americans who wonder if anything has been done over the last year, the answer is yes. These are not simple matters. There are strongly held views. We have longstanding traditions about how voting is to be conducted in this country. Americans, as they demonstrated yesterday in New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and in places all over the country where elections were held, still believe very deeply in the right to vote and have their votes counted. I am hopeful that in the coming days we will be able to announce a compromise proposal. Again, I thank my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and many others interested in this subject matter. Our hope is we will soon be able to bring a compromise election reform bill before the Senate of the United States.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Warner, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, Senator Cleland, and Senator Corzine to introduce legislation to ensure that America's firefighters have the staffing they need to safely do their jobs. It has been nearly seven weeks since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We are still assessing the damage done by those attacks, but one thing is already absolutely certain, the world has changed. And as we begin to figure out all of the ways in which the world has changed, we are starting to reassess our national priorities. We, as a Nation, are taking stock of our strengths and vulnerabilities, and we're identifying ways to improve our capacity to deal with the threats that became so apparent on September 11. One of the fundamental new realities that we find ourselves facing is that America needs to be better prepared to respond to deliberate acts of mass destruction. We need to be better prepared to deal with acts of bioterrorism and we need to be prepared to help save people even if they are deliberately attacked with toxic chemical weapons. In short, we need to be prepared for what seemed unthinkable. The legislation that we are proposing will help ensure that America's local fire agencies have the human resources that they need to meet the challenges which they will address as America faces the challenge of an extended war against terrorism. Just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national commitment to hire the firefighters necessary to protect the American people here on the home front. The legislation that we are proposing will put 75,000 new firefighters on America's streets over the next seven years. Many of us in Congress have long understood that America's firefighters make extraordinary contributions to their communities everyday. But on September 11, we got a glimpse of a larger role that the men and women of the fire service, not to mention police forces play. The national role of our firefighters has become apparent. They have made the nation proud. Despite the increasingly important role firefighters play both in our local communities and as part of our national homeland defense system, communities over the years have not maintained the level of staffing necessary to ensure the safety of the public or even of the firefighters themselves. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has steadily declined. Today in America there is only one firefighter for every 280 citizens. We have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers. We need to turn this trend around, now more than ever. Understaffing is dangerous for the public and for firefighters. Chronic understaffing means that many firefighters do not have the backup and on-the-ground support they need to do their jobs safely. The sad consequence is that about every three days we lose a firefighter in the line of duty. And on some days, the losses are unimaginably high. We learned on September 11 that the American homeland is not immune from unthinkable acts of violence. Knowing that, we have an obligation to take every reasonable step to mitigate the potential damage that may be caused by future attacks. Again, just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national commitment to hire firefighters to protect the American people. In these difficult times, it is both necessary and proper for us to send for reinforcements for our domestic defenders. The SAFER Act will make that commitment. This legislation honors America's firefighters. It acknowledges the men and women who charge up the stairs while everybody else is running down them. But it is more than that. This legislation is an investment in America's security, an investment that will rebuild public confidence and help reassure Americans that their homes and businesses are as well protected as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Warner, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, Senator Cleland, and Senator Corzine to introduce legislation to ensure that America's firefighters have the staffing they need to safely do their jobs. It has been nearly seven weeks since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We are still assessing the damage done by those attacks, but one thing is already absolutely certain, the world has changed. And as we begin to figure out all of the ways in which the world has changed, we are starting to reassess our national priorities. We, as a Nation, are taking stock of our strengths and vulnerabilities, and we're identifying ways to improve our capacity to deal with the threats that became so apparent on September 11. One of the fundamental new realities that we find ourselves facing is that America needs to be better prepared to respond to deliberate acts of mass destruction. We need to be better prepared to deal with acts of bioterrorism and we need to be prepared to help save people even if they are deliberately attacked with toxic chemical weapons. In short, we need to be prepared for what seemed unthinkable. The legislation that we are proposing will help ensure that America's local fire agencies have the human resources that they need to meet the challenges which they will address as America faces the challenge of an extended war against terrorism. Just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national commitment to hire the firefighters necessary to protect the American people here on the home front. The legislation that we are proposing will put 75,000 new firefighters on America's streets over the next seven years. Many of us in Congress have long understood that America's firefighters make extraordinary contributions to their communities everyday. But on September 11, we got a glimpse of a larger role that the men and women of the fire service, not to mention police forces play. The national role of our firefighters has become apparent. They have made the nation proud. Despite the increasingly important role firefighters play both in our local communities and as part of our national homeland defense system, communities over the years have not maintained the level of staffing necessary to ensure the safety of the public or even of the firefighters themselves. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has steadily declined. Today in America there is only one firefighter for every 280 citizens. We have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers. We need to turn this trend around, now more than ever. Understaffing is dangerous for the public and for firefighters. Chronic understaffing means that many firefighters do not have the backup and on-the-ground support they need to do their jobs safely. The sad consequence is that about every three days we lose a firefighter in the line of duty. And on some days, the losses are unimaginably high. We learned on September 11 that the American homeland is not immune from unthinkable acts of violence. Knowing that, we have an obligation to take every reasonable step to mitigate the potential damage that may be caused by future attacks. Again, just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national commitment to hire firefighters to protect the American people. In these difficult times, it is both necessary and proper for us to send for reinforcements for our domestic defenders. The SAFER Act will make that commitment. This legislation honors America's firefighters. It acknowledges the men and women who charge up the stairs while everybody else is running down them. But it is more than that. This legislation is an investment in America's security, an investment that will rebuild public confidence and help reassure Americans that their homes and businesses are as well protected as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are obviously choices made all over the place in terms of programs being cut. The point of this is that the Senator from Florida and I are proposing that we get back to the level the President suggested. This is about the Andean region. In the past we dealt with Colombia. There were concerns raised by many about that program. This deals with the Andean region. It is more than just one country. This is a critical issue. I know our attention today is focused on Central Asia, as it should be, and Afghanistan and the Taliban. But we will have to have a continuing effort in other parts of the globe on threats we face. Clearly, we will lose thousands of people every year in this country in drug-related deaths, and about 98 percent of the product which is the source of this devastation in our country comes from the Andean region. Our attention today has shifted. All we are suggesting is that we get back to the level the President suggested, $164 million. It is a cut of 22 percent dealing with several countries in the region, not just one. I am sure my friend from Florida has gone over the details of this to explain where the resources go and how effective we hope it will be. I join with him. Obviously, I am not interested in seeing the Peace Corps cut, or Eximbank, or other programs, which I know my friend from Vermont cares about very much. I understand the difficulty of wrestling with these programs. But I believe very strongly that this is an area where we have to maintain a level of consistent involvement, or we are going to find that the resources we have committed are going to be diluted significantly. This is a very serious effort. It is not on the front pages today, but it will be again, I guarantee you. That is the reason we offered this amendment. My hope is that we can reach some agreement so we can do more. Again, I believe very strongly that this is one of the most critical issues--not just for ourselves. It is in the direct interest of people who are dying every day in our streets as a result of what happened in these countries. Our efforts are to work with friends in the area-- particularly in Colombia--people who have paid an awful price over the years, a devastating price. They have attempted to shed this country down there of any vestige of its own long historic democratic institutions. We are under siege in a lot of places around the globe. This is a major one. Therefore, the cut that has come here is one we would like to see restored. Therefore, I urge the adoption of the amendment.