Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I think the Senator from California raises a very good question, and one that she provides the answer for in her question. Obviously, over the years, we have said to people, if you lose your job because of trade policies--which we think have a long-term beneficial effect on the country and we see something good come out of that--if you lose your job because we are trying to achieve a greater good, we will step into that breach and provide some assistance to you and your family. How ironic that when something terrible happens and you lose your job, we can't provide benefits to help you and your family during difficult times. I am stunned by this. I thought this was going to be a non-issue. I could see where people might want to modify this a bit. Instead of 52 weeks, make it 45 weeks; instead of 100 percent of Medicaid, we will make it 90 percent. I can understand people making a case that we need to modify the Carnahan amendment. But not to provide for any kind of alternative is something that just gets away. We have to finish the bill. I know the distinguished chairman of the committee has an awful burden to get this done. He has argued very persuasively that we have a responsibility to meet the security needs. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. I understand the sense of urgency to get this done. I am sure my friend from South Carolina would not argue with that coming up rather quickly as we did with the airline bailout. That didn't take long. We managed to find the time around here to come up with the time to debate it, discuss it, and work it out. Again, I voted for that bill. I would again today. I don't argue with that at all. But I am stunned that we can't find the time somehow to say to those thousands of workers--baggage handlers, flight attendants, and mechanics--who have lost their jobs and are wondering how they are going to make ends meet--we have time for everybody but you. Everybody else got in line. But you don't. We are sending the message that we don't have enough time to take care of you. I am terribly disappointed that our colleagues have decided to reject this cloture motion. But I tell you that people out there have lost their jobs. Millions of other Americans are watching this vote to see what we did to average people out there on this day, 1 month later. We memorialize those who lost their lives but this Chamber couldn't find in its heart to come up with a few extra dollars to help some people who have lost their work. That is a sad day. That is not the way to commemorate those who gave so much 1 month ago. I am deeply disappointed in my colleagues.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to comment on the passage of the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate last week by a vote of 99 to 0. The annual process of authorizing funding for our nation's armed forces and defense activities is always a grave and important matter with profound implications for our national defense and global security. In light of the recent and vicious terrorist attacks on the symbols of our financial and military power and the murder of thousands of innocent Americans, this process has become even more significant. To that end, it is entirely appropriate and necessary that a major focus of this legislation is combating international terrorism and other asymmetric threats such as terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, including the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. In my view, we ought to redouble our efforts and remain vigilant in our counterterrorism activities to prevent these tragedies from occurring and to deter those who contemplate such acts of barbarism. The fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act takes a number of important steps in thwarting terrorism. It authorizes $5.6 billion to deter and defend against the threat of terrorism--an increase of $1.0 billion over fiscal year 2001 levels. Specifically, it increases funding by $217.2 million to the Department of Defense's Combating Terrorism Initiative--which is aimed at defending and responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction. Another important initiative includes a $10 million increase to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund which targets and identifies emerging threats from terrorist organizations and funds vital counterterrorism activities and training by our nation's armed forces. This legislation also continues our efforts to cease the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In particular, this legislation authorizes $403.0 million for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program which has successfully helped destroy and dismantle more than 5,000 nuclear warheads and more than 1,000 nuclear missiles in the former Soviet Union. One of the most critically important and innovative provisions of the Nunn-Lugar program--the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program--has helped prevent Russian scientists from exporting their knowledge of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction to rogue states. Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Warner deserve to be commended for their efforts to find agreement on the missile defense issue. Provisions that would have sought to prevent the Administration from engaging in activities that would have violated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty were dropped from the bill as part of the compromise reached by Chairman Levin and Senator Warner. Chairman Levin has indicated that these provisions--which have important implications for our national security--will be considered as a stand-alone bill at a later time. In addition, $1.3 billion in funding that was cut from the President's missile defense budget request and targeted toward counterterrorism activities will be used to fund--at the discretion of the President--missile defense activities or counterterrorism activities. Certainly, we ought to do all we can--especially in light of the terrorist attack--to protect our nation from all threats, including ballistic missiles. I support the testing and development of a limited national missile defense system, so long as it is consistent with international arms control treaties and enhances global security. However, the unilateral abrogation of the 1972 ABM Treaty by the United States would be highly destabilizing, in my view, and could expedite China's nuclear modernization plans. It could also fuel an international arms race between India and Pakistan, which is not in any nation's interest. I hope that we can continue to debate these important issues that have profound implications for our nation's defense and foreign policy. The fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization provides $343.5 billion in funding for vital national security activities of the Department of Defense and certain nuclear non-proliferation programs of the Department of Energy. All in all, this legislation represents an increase of $32.9 billion--a 10 percent increase over last year's levels and represents the largest increase in defense spending since the mid-1980s. Much of the funding increases are targeted, rightfully so, to the men and women who serve in the armed forces, including: increases in compensation to improve the quality of life of U.S. forces and their families; increasing military pay; and increasing housing allowances and educational benefits. This legislation also includes a provision authorizing the Administration to consider and possibly recommend an additional round of base closures and realignments, BRAC, in 2003. It authorizes the Secretary of Defense--in consultation with Congress--to appoint members to a bipartisan commission tasked with making recommendations on the closure and realignment of military facilities. Their recommendations would come before the President--en masse--who would either approve or disapprove of the commission's report. If the President agrees with the commission's recommendations, Congress would have an up-or-down vote on the entire list of recommendations. Since 1995, I have voted against additional rounds of base closures because I felt it was premature to authorize them without knowing the full effect, costs, and savings associated with previous rounds. It has now been six years since the last round of base closures were authorized, and Secretary Rumsfeld has strongly supported an additional round of closures to free up funding for the modernization and transformation of our nation's armed forces to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. The Department of Defense has estimated savings of $14 billion dollars from previous rounds of base closures and has maintained that the U.S. armed forces has 20 to 25 percent excess capacity resulting from too many military bases. While we ought do all we can to streamline and improve the efficiency of our nation's armed forces, I believe we should be very careful and judicious about the closing of miliary bases. After all, once a military base is closed, it will most likely be gone forever. My home state of Connecticut has been particularly affected by previous rounds, and I believe that decisions to close military facilities must be done with the utmost care that is consistent with our national security needs. While I support the provision in this legislation to authorize an additional round of closures, it does not necessarily mean that I will agree with the recommendations. I will reserve judgment on the merits of their recommendations if and when the commission's report is completed. Overall, this legislation includes vital increases in military readiness and preparedness, and represents an important first step toward modernizing and transforming the military to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. To that end, I am very pleased that this legislation recognizes and rewards the ingenuity and technological acumen of Connecticut's highly skilled workforce, defense and aerospace firms, and contractors. Increases in funding for the procurement of Sirkorsky Black Hawk UH- 60 helicopters reflect the critical importance that this aircraft holds for the Army, Navy, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. This legislation authorizes funding for 10 additional UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters for the Army National Guard--addressing a critical funding shortfall by meeting the Guard's number one unfunded priority. These high-quality, technologically advanced, utility helicopters provide critical functions for the nation's armed forces, and this legislation recognizes their importance to our national defense. This legislation also provides $2.2 billion for the production of a new Virginia-class submarine by Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut and authorizes $684 million in advanced procurement for two new attack submarines in fiscal year 2003 and 2004. This will allow Electric Boat to produce these state-of-the-art attack submarines in the most efficient and economical manner possible. The advanced funding also increases the likelihood of increasing submarine production in the near future--perhaps by 2006--which is a critical component of meeting long- range defense needs. Finally, this legislation authorizes $440 million for the SSGN Trident conversion program, which will allow the U.S. Navy to convert four Ohio-class submarines to fire conventional Tomahawk missiles and perform special and covert operations. These submarines have 22 years of hull life left, and converting these submarines will provide the U.S. Navy with invaluable stealth capability and fire power. I am pleased that much of the work for converting these submarines will be performed by talented, diligent workers in Southeastern Connecticut. This legislation funds many weapons programs that will play a critical role in our national defense in the near future, including the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the Comanche helicopter. For the near term, this legislation also provides funding to upgrade the engines of the aging fleet of F-15s and F-16s. Joint STARS--the highly sophisticated and technologically advanced radar surveillance aircraft system--is fully funded at $283.2 million with $46 million in advanced procurement of an additional Joint STARS platform in the future. This advanced radar system is manufactured at Northrop Grumman's Norden facility in Norwalk, Connecticut. Theater Commanders-in-Chief have consistently articulated the need for additional Joint STARS aircraft, and these platforms have historically provided vital surveillance and reconnaissance functions in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and Kosovo. I would also like to mention some other important programs authorized under this legislation. Funding for fifteen C-17 transport airplanes-- powered by Pratt & Whitney F117 jet engines--is provided under this bill for a total of $3.5 billion. In addition, funding for aircraft training systems for the U.S. Navy--also powered by Pratt & Whitney engines--is authorized for an additional $44.6 million dollars above the President's request. And, $4.5 million is provided for important military research projects conducted at the University of Connecticut in the area of medical vaccines and fuel cells. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to address two amendments that I planned on offering to the FY 2002 National Defense Authorization bill. The first amendment--which was adopted unanimously by voice vote-- authorizes funding for the FIRE Act through fiscal year 2004. This critically important program provides federal grant funding for professional and volunteer fire departments to hire firefighters, purchase equipment, and invest in training. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, only serves to underscore the critical role that the brave men and women of fire and emergency response departments play in protecting and saving lives. This amendment addresses a major funding shortfall for training and equipment for our local fire departments. Last year, while Congress appropriated $100 million in grant funding under the FIRE Act, local fire departments submitted nearly $3 billion in grant requests. This represents nearly $2.8 billion worth of unfunded requests under the FIRE Act program. My amendment addresses this funding shortfall by authorizing up to $600 million in fiscal year 2002, up to $800 million in fiscal year 2003, and up to $1 billion in fiscal year 2004 to meet the burgeoning demands of local fire departments as they seek to protect communities and save lives. I also filed an amendment on the critically important issue of election reform. The National Defense Authorization bill included requirements for state and local election officials to meet with regard to voting by military and overseas voters. While I strongly support the voting rights provisions included in the National Defense Authorization bill, I would like to see these issues addressed in a more comprehensive and meaningful way. I have authored legislation, S. 565, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act--which passed the Senate Rules Committee by a vote of 10 to 0--that would accomplish this by ensuring that basic, federal standards to secure the right to vote in federal elections are provided to all eligible American voters. In order to accomplish this in an expedited fashion, I planned to offer my election reform bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill in the hope that this would spur action to enact meaningful, comprehensive election reform into law before Congress adjourns for the year. However, in lieu of offering that amendment and in order to facilitate swift enactment of the defense bill, I included language in a bipartisan amendment--offered by Senator Allard--which recognizes the need to ensure that all eligible voters have their vote counted. Specifically, this sense-of-the-Senate language states that each election administrator of a Federal, State, or local election should ensure that all eligible American voters, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, the language they speak, or the resources of the community in which they live should have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. While this represents an important step forward, I will continue to diligently work toward passing meaningful and comprehensive election reform legislation during this session of Congress. As our nation embarks on what promises to be a long and difficult war against terrorism, our nation's armed services will need the full support and resources of the government and the American people. The fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization bill represents the first step toward providing the men and women of the armed forces with the resources they need to succeed in this endeavor, and I strongly support its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, last week representatives of the Mexican Senate came to the U.S. Senate to meet with legislators and express their support for the U.S.-led effort against terrorism. Mexico has always been a close neighbor and friend to the United States, and the Senators traveled here to ensure us that, in this time of need, our friend and ally Mexico stands by us. The delegation of Mexican Senators presented the Majority Leader, Mr. Daschle, with a letter from Diego Fernandez De Cevallos, the President of the Mexican Senate, which expresses the Mexican Senate's condolences in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11th. That letter also contained a statement from the entire membership of the Mexican Senate commenting on the attacks and the unique relationship between Mexico and the United States. I think that my colleagues would benefit from seeing these comments in the Record. At times like these every expression of support from our allies is important. However, given the special relationship between the United States and Mexico, it is even more important to see evidence that out allegiance is strong. These letters prove exactly that. I thank the Mexican Senate for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and statement from the Mexican Senators be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, be added as a cosponsor to the fire act amendment.

Mr. DODD. Yes, we should.

Mr. DODD. He told me he wants to be a cosponsor so we will do that much, anyway. I ask unanimous consent Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield further, he might want to ask unanimous consent that others might be able to join with Senator Helms in commending Hugh Shelton. I am not a member of the committee, but all of us at one time or another have had dealings with him, even though he is responsible to responding to the Armed Services Committee. This is a remarkable public servant, Hugh Shelton, and he is going to be missed. He has a wonderful successor. I do not know him as well as I know General Shelton, but on behalf of those not on the committee but who have watched him and talked to him and called him from time to time, this is truly a great citizen, and I wish to add my thoughts and comments about his contribution to our country as well.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Virginia for his eloquent comments and remarks. He has made a strong statement on the value of this amendment and the contribution it has made. As I pointed out in my remarks, we put in $100 million a year ago and we had over $3 billion worth of grant requests from 20,000 departments across the country. We are not going to satisfy all of that, even if there is a full appropriation to equal the authorization amounts here, but it can make a difference for these people. My office spoke with Senator McCain's office and I ask unanimous consent Senator McCain be listed as a cosponsor of this amendment. He has no objection to this amendment being adopted. I urge we agree to the amendment by voice vote. Perhaps others may want to be heard.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, be added as cosponsors of the just-adopted fire act amendment, if I may.

Mr. DODD. I further ask unanimous consent that any additional Members have until the close of business today to add themselves as cosponsors.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, I want to take just a few minutes, while the chairman and ranking member are off the floor, to comment on some other aspects of this bill that is before us, the Department of Defense authorization bill, and to comment about a larger measure. I have filed an amendment which I may offer. I doubt if I will, but I want to talk about it, if I may. I rise to speak about the election reform provisions contained in the DOD authorization bill. First, let me applaud the members of the committee for including these provisions in the DOD authorization bill. We are all familiar with the fact that last year in the national elections there were issues raised about the ability of our men and women in uniform to cast ballots and have those ballots counted. I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from South Carolina, who represents major military installations in his State, men and women from his State who have served in significantly high numbers, has talked about their right to vote. At this very hour, as we are gathered here, many of them are scattered to the four corners of the globe, protecting and defending the interests of our Nation. There were provisions adopted in the committee print which I think go a significant way toward minimizing the kinds of irregularities and problems our men and women in uniform witnessed last year in casting their ballots and having their ballots counted. As we prepare to defend our democracy, as we talk about this the most significant of the bills we debate and discuss on national security, I think it is vital that we also work together in a bipartisan fashion to strengthen our democracy at home. So I commend and thank our colleagues for adding these provisions to the Defense authorization bill. This is a new world, as we have all heard repeated over and over again during the last several weeks. We are living in a new world where our very democracy is under assault. In fact, if I can quote from President Bush's recent speech to the joint session of Congress, the reason we are under attack is because of our democratic system. As the President said just a few nights ago: They hate what they see right here in this Chamber, a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self appointed. They hate our freedoms: Our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble, and to disagree with each other. Those are important statements. So as we prepare to send troops possibly into harm's way, it is necessary that we try to do everything we can to secure for these brave men and women their precious freedom-- the freedom to vote. I can think of few more important statements the United States could make to terrorists than to take steps to strengthen and secure the right to vote for all eligible Americans, and to have their votes counted. If the terrorists harbored any illusions that they would destabilize our democracy by perpetrating acts of evil against innocent people, our determination to strengthen the right to vote proves that the terrorists are sadly mistaken. The provisions of this bill help ensure that right by setting uniform nondiscriminatory voting standards, residency requirements, and registration of balloting rights for uniformed service voters and their spouses and dependents. There are over 6 million men and women who serve in our uniformed services. These citizens put themselves on the line and are at risk every day to protect our Nation. Yet, in some cases, when they cast their votes, those votes have not been counted. This is unacceptable. It is most appropriate that we address this inadequacy in the text of the Department of Defense authorization measures. I fully support these provisions which provide for certain minimum Federal requirements for voting and registration. Specifically, this provision requires States to ensure that each voting system used within a State for elections for Federal, State, and local offices, provide overseas voters and absent uniformed service voters with a meaningful opportunity to exercise their voting rights as citizens of the United States; second, to count an absentee ballot for an election for Federal, State, or local office that is timely submitted by an overseas voter or absent uniform services voter to the proper official and is otherwise valid; third, it permits absent uniformed services voters to use absentee registration procedures and vote by absentee ballot in primary, general, special, and runoff elections for State and local offices; lastly, to accept and process any voter registration application from an absent uniformed services voter if the application is received by the State official not less than 30 days before the date of the election and is otherwise valid. I fully support all of these Federal requirements. Importantly, this bill mandates these requirements. The bill doesn't say that it would permit any State to opt out of these desperately needed reforms. These are mandates. The States shall do this regardless of jurisdiction. These men and women are serving in our Federal uniformed services. They are protecting our Nation. Whether they are voting for a local office or the Presidency of the United States, we have to mandate these requirements. The chairman of the committee, the ranking member, and Republicans and Democrats alike support mandated provisions in the context of voting rights for uniformed services voters. The only way to guarantee that such requirements become part of the voting rights for uniformed services voters is in fact to mandate them and to give the States the resources they may require to implement these provisions. This bill is an important and long overdue effort to ensure that our uniformed services voters, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, the language they speak, or the resources of the community they live in, either abroad or in America, have an equal opportunity to cast their votes and have their votes counted. But we also need to make sure that when these uniformed services voters and their families return to civilian life, their rights to vote remain protected regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, the language they speak, or the resources of the community in which they live--whether it is abroad or in America, in my view. Today we are ensuring in this bill the right to cast a vote and have that vote counted for our uniformed services voters. I see the presence of the distinguished ranking member, Senator Warner. I commend the Senator and Senator Levin for incorporating these voting rights for our men and women in uniform. Before this Congress recesses for the year, or in the alternative, at the earliest opportunity next year, I hope we set similar minimum Federal standards to ensure the same opportunity for all eligible American voters, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, the language they speak, or the resources of the community in which they live--whether it is abroad or in America. We must enact such comprehensive election reforms while there is time to affect the elections for Federal offices in the year 2002 to the extent possible, and more particularly the next Presidential election in the year 2004. To this end, I have filed my comprehensive election reform bill, S. 565, the Dodd-Conyers bill, as an amendment to the Defense Department authorization act. The Rules Committee ordered this measure reported on August 2 by a vote of 10-0. The Dodd-Conyers bill--the Equal Protection Voting Rights Act of 2001--I believe, as well as 51 of my colleagues, is the strongest and most comprehensive election reform proposal that has been introduced in Congress today. For that reason, it enjoys more support than any other election reform bill in both Houses. Some 211 Democrat and Republican and independent Members of Congress support this legislation. Let me briefly describe once again to my colleagues what this bill will do. In fact, it is completely consistent with the provisions contained in this DOD authorization bill for the men and women in uniform. Specifically, the Dodd-Conyers bill creates a temporary commission to study election reform issues and then submit a report of recommendations in those areas. It creates a grant program to States and localities for Federal funds to acquire updating voting systems and technology, improve voting registration systems, and educate voters and poll workers. Lastly, it establishes three minimum Federal requirements for elections for Federal office, effective year 2004, with authorization for appropriations to pay for these requirements. These three requirements are: No. 1, Federal standards for voting systems, machines and technology; No. 2, provisional voting; and No. 3, distribution of sample ballots and voting instructions. These three areas are not radical ideas for Federal requirements. The Federal standards for voting machines do not dictate what specific voting machine ought to be used by States and localities. How people vote in Virginia, South Carolina, Connecticut, or Michigan ought to be up to what local people want to do; which machine; which system they want to have in place. We don't decide that at the Federal level. We do not use the approach of ``one size fits all''. On the contrary, in my bill States are merely required to adopt the Federal standards for voting systems and equipment governed by the Federal Election Commission. At this time, over 36 States have voluntarily adopted these VSS standards. Those standards do not require specific machines or software but rather specific functionality and performance. For example, voting systems must have some error notification functions, be accessible to disabled voters, and have a capacity for audit trail to avoid fraud. Those basic requirements are not terribly complicated. I don't think that is a radical idea in the 21st century. When you are voting for the Presidency of the United States, and when you are voting for the national assembly, how people vote in one jurisdiction affects the votes of others in other jurisdictions. You are not just voting for a local office. If you get it wrong in Connecticut when voting for the President, then voters in South Carolina have their vote diluted because the outcome could affect how they cast their ballots from South Carolina. In Presidential elections, a national Congress having minimum Federal Standard that applies to all 50 States is absolutely required. Otherwise, you lend yourself to be open to the probability that in local areas where voters may not be allowed to vote, or the votes can't be counted, the overall outcome is affected. That dilutes the rights of other voters in other jurisdictions who have done it right and is a violation of the ``one person, one vote'' principle. This is not a radical idea. The second requirement is provisional voting. Again, this is not a radical idea. Many jurisdictions already do it. Very simply, someone shows up to vote. They claim they have registered to vote. They have filled out all the paperwork. And, for whatever reason, the person sitting in that precinct says: I am sorry, we don't have your name on the voter registration lists or there is a challenge for some other reason. We don't think you are registered to vote. At that point, you become a provisional voter. You allow that person to cast their ballot. Like an absentee ballot, you set it aside and allow that process to go forward. The person casts their ballot, the ballot is set aside, and at the end of the process, you go back and determine whether or not the voter was an eligible voter and otherwise entitled to cast a vote and have that vote counted. If the voter was right, you cast the ballot. If the voter was wrong, you don't cast the ballot. This is not terribly complicated. I think, depending on the definition of ``provisional ballot'' process used, all jurisdictions already have some form of ``provision balloting''. Again, it allows people who believe they have voted--in many cases properly registered-- to then actually cast their ballot and have that vote counted. Thirdly, the distribution of sample ballots and voting instructions: Thus far, every jurisdiction has sample ballots, the issue is how and whether those sample ballots are distributed. Because of the many different factors that influence ballots, such as constitutional amendments or referendums, it can be costly and labor intensive to print and distribute such sample ballots. Today, having people take a look at sample ballots before you actually go in to vote just might facilitate the process, raise the level of awareness, and give people a chance to become more familiar with what is on the ballot. It is a value. Those are all three of the requirements. The big battle is over whether or not they ought to be voluntary or mandated. In the DOD bill, we said when it comes to uniformed services, this is not a choice you have, it is mandated. If this bill is adopted, we will mandate that every jurisdiction in America--whether you like it or not--is going to see to it that men and women in uniform have the right to vote and their vote counted. It is not a great leap to say if it is good for uniformed services voters, it is also good to mandate the three basic minimum Federal requirements for all eligible voters, particularly when you are talking about elections of the Presidency and the National Congress? I am not going to offer this larger provision on this bill. We have already incorporated in committee the minimum voting requirements for men and women in uniform. I strongly support what the committee has done. But I do want to raise the issue. I know in the midst of everything else that is going on, it is not terribly likely--although it may become likely if the session runs longer than some anticipate--to actually bring up the election reform bill. I cannot think of anything we could do that would express our sense of unity as Americans--I guess memories may fade a little bit, and obviously the events of September 11 are so huge that many people may have forgotten the amount of time and attention the Nation took last year--almost a year ago--on November 7th with the national election. In the weeks that went by before we resolved what occurred, night after night we watched what happened in the State of Florida, because that State happened to be the pivotal one. I quickly point out the problems existed in almost every State. And in some States, Georgia and Illinois for example, the problems were much more significant than the problems in Florida, we now know. But I think we ought to go back and remind ourselves of what occurred and how disappointed we were, as Americans, to see a voting system that had fallen into such disrepair. We were lecturing the rest of the world on how to vote. We had sent teams all over the globe, going to Third World countries, to show them how we do it in America. Well, now the world has gotten a good view of how we did it in America. Frankly, we were not terribly impressed nor was the world. So I cannot think of a better message we could give to terrorists, and others who want to destabilize our country, than that we are going to get our voting system right, that we are going to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, and fashion a system that makes us all proud. My hope is that will happen. As some may know, I have had discussions with my good friend from Missouri, Senator Kit Bond, who has some very strong ideas on how we could minimize voter fraud in this country. And it is a problem. He said something that I think is true, that we ought to have as sort of a slogan on this bill that it ought to be easy to vote and very difficult to commit fraud. And today it is hard to vote and maybe pretty easy to commit fraud. We need to reverse that trend. So I am hopeful he and I can work out some proposal that we can present to the entire body here, possibly before we end this session of Congress. What a tremendous message we could send, that we are improving the voting process in this country. These requirements that I have laid out and talked about have already been adopted by many States. The Voting systems standards have been voluntarily adopted by over 36 States. As I mentioned earlier, provisional voting, or some aspect of a provisional balloting procedure, has also been adopted in every State and the District of Columbia by statues. For example, 20 States have provisional balloting statutes, 12 States contain some aspect of the provisional process, not all of them and about 18 States have no provisional ballot statutes but contain some related provisions, such as same-day voter registration. The third requirement is sample ballot distribution and voting instructions. It is fairly straightforward. My best information indicates that at this time all States and the District of Columbia have laws providing for some form of sample ballots. However, how these sample ballots are distributed appears to vary quite significantly from State to State. I will not go into all the details here. I don't want to take the time of my colleagues. Suffice it to say that the committee deserves a great deal of credit for what they have done for our men and women in uniform. The Federal mandate ought to substantially minimize the problems that occurred a year ago across the nation for our men and women in uniform serving overseas when they want to cast votes and have their votes counted. My hope is we can complete the process now by providing comprehensive election reform for every eligible American voter who desires to cast a vote and have that vote counted, just as we provide for our men and women in uniform. The men and women in uniform will be the first to tell you they do not want to be treated differently in that regard. They are citizens of the country. They are citizen soldiers, but citizens. And the right to vote and have your vote counted ought to be a right that is guaranteed to every eligible U.S. citizen who meets the requirements, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, the language they speak, or the resources of the community they live in, whether abroad or in the United States. So my hope is that in the midst of all the other things we are going to do to make our country stronger, to make it more secure, to protect our airports, to protect our buildings, to protect our people from the threats of terrorist attack, the one thing we might also try to do in the midst of all of this is to make our elections process stronger and prove that our democracy is strong. It has been pointed out--I mentioned it earlier today--the tremendous heroic achievements of the passengers on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. Many of us believe that plane may have very well been headed for Washington, DC, and headed for this very building. We do not know exactly what happened there, but it appears as though some very heroic passengers took some very courageous action. In fact, we do know from cell phone conversations that they did something that ought to remain in the minds of every one of us. They, in the midst of all of this, decided to have a vote about what to do, according to the cell phone conversations of several spouses who heard from their husbands. Imagine this: Here are terrorists on a plane who are about to crash this plane--maybe into this very building, or some other facility; symbols of our democracy, our freedom, and our rights--and the passengers on that doomed aircraft decided to cast a ballot about what to do. Mr. President, I would like to see us be able to cast our ballots as far as the eye can see in the future of this country, and to see that this process is strengthened, that every citizen, race, ethnicity, disability, the language they speak, the resources of the community in which they live, can have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and an equal opportunity to have that vote counted. I cannot think of a better message that we could send, beyond the things we are doing already, to those who are hiding in the shadows of the world tonight, possibly planning some form of terrorist attack, disregarding basic rights of people, than to say that in the target of your hostility, in a place called America, people have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have those votes counted. We are going to make it stronger in the coming days and weeks, not weaker. So I commend, again, the committee for their efforts. I further look forward to the opportunity when we can bring up a comprehensive election reform bill to right the wrongs and concerns that I think all of us agree occurred in last year's national elections. What better message can we send to the caves of Afghanistan, or wherever these people may be residing--they may be watching this debate--than that you may try, over and over again, to do everything to destabilize this country, but the people who cast their ballots on that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are a reflection of who we are as a people. You will never deny us the right to vote and the right to choose our leaders democratically. I think the bill that John Conyers and I have offered in the House and the Senate, with some 51 cosponsors in this Chamber, goes a long way to achieving that desired result. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1750.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That it be considered prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. DODD. The only request I would make is this amendment be considered prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. DODD. Right.

Mr. DODD. We could have a voice vote. We do not need a recorded vote.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, if there is no objection to the amendment being incorporated in the bill, this may be the one opportunity where we will be able to do something about these firefighters.

Mr. DODD. Why don't we proceed this way, if we could: After the Senator from Minnesota has been heard, if I can offer the amendment, I would like to discuss it. In the meantime, we can have conversations. We have already had conversations with members of the Commerce Committee. If they are going to object to us voting on this prior to the cloture vote tomorrow, or allow us to have a voice vote on this, then so be it. But if not, then it could go through this evening. We ought to try to do it. Is that all right?

Mr. DODD. I say to my friend, we have notified the Commerce Committee about this amendment. Again, I think they understand that given the constraints remaining for us to offer a freestanding proposal, and given the history of this bill associated with the DOD bill, I will leave it to them to address it themselves. But we have talked about it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague and friend from Virginia will yield, I anticipate taking no longer than 15 minutes myself. Others may want to be heard. Just for the purpose of letting Members know, this will be an amendment for which, frankly, the chairman and ranking member are very much responsible; and that is the fire assistance program in which we are dedicating, in this case, to the 350 or so firemen who lost their lives in New York on September 11, and those who fought here at the Pentagon, to increase the authorization levels. Others may want to be heard on that. On my part, 15 minutes ought to be more than adequate.