Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, this amendment deals with the FIRE Act, a bill which we adopted in a previous Congress, providing assistance to departments--paid departments, volunteer departments, and combination departments for equipment and the like. I see my colleague from Virginia rising.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me take a second and commend our two colleagues from Michigan and from Virginia, the Chairman and Ranking Member. Only a few months ago, those roles were reversed; the chairman was from Virginia and the ranking member was from Michigan. This is a great team which has done a tremendous job. It is sort of a seamless garment in many ways, in terms of their leadership on national security issues as the chairman and ranking members of the Armed Services Committee. I want to take a moment to commend them both for the spectacular job they have done over the last 2\1/2\ weeks since the great tragedy on September 11. Not only have they led in terms of moving their committee product along and offering us an opportunity to do something very constructive and positive in responding to the events of September 11, but also in their public commentary on this issue both here on the floor of the Senate as well as in the public forums. The Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, and the Senator from Virginia, John Warner, have truly lived up to the spirit of those who in other times of crisis have led without partisanship and with a sense of unity. I think it has been reassuring to the American public to have both of them in the positions they are in. On the subject at hand, I have 15 minutes, so I will try to be brief. I thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia for being supportive of this effort. In fact, in many ways, without their leadership and support on this very matter, we would not have ever adopted the FIRE Act. Very simply put, this legislation allows for fire departments across this country--some 30,000 of them, paid volunteers and combined departments--to seek Federal grants for training and equipment to assist them in doing a better job in responding to tragedies in our local communities. I don't need to make this case. I suppose I could end my remarks there. There is not a single person in this country who is not aware of the heroic efforts of our fire departments, not only within the city of New York, which, of course, suffered the greatest tragedy when it came to the loss of life, not only of civilian populations but also firefighters, but also here in the Nation's Capital and the departments in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. On a parochial note, if you will, some of the first departments to respond to the tragedy at the World Trade Center came from my home State of Connecticut. I note the presence of the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Jersey. I know, in fact, many of the people from his State as well responded to this catastrophe, the savage attacks in New York City. I don't need to make the case about how valuable these men and women are in the job they do. I think we become aware that--despite our traditional thinking about fire departments, with sort of the Dalmatian dog in the front seat and responding to the residential or small business fire--today they are asked to become basically soldiers. The distinction between what they do and what the men and women in military uniforms do--the lines are becoming blurred somewhat here. No greater piece of evidence can I offer than that which occurred on September 11. Some may say: What are you doing offering a fire amendment on the Department of Defense authorization? One, this is where the bill was born. As a result of the leadership of the two men I have mentioned already. This bill became law in conference. I offered the bill here, but without them this bill would not have become the law of the land. In a sense, now to extend the authorization over the next several years with a relatively small amendment for this fiscal year, increasing over the next 3 years so that we can provide assistance to these departments, I think is critical and important. With that, let me explain what is in the bill. Many of us in the Senate and in the Congress have long understood that America's firefighters make extraordinary contributions to their communities. But on September 11, of course, we got a glimpse of a larger role these men and women of the fire service play. The national security role of firefighters has become readily apparent to all in this country. On the morning of September 11, the men and women of the New York City Fire Department came to the aid of the entire Nation. They charged in to rescue people from every region of our country and more than 40 nations around the globe. Those firefighters raced into that building to save the lives of people trapped in those two towers. On the same morning, firefighters from Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia became domestic defenders, responsible for coordinating a response to an attack on the headquarters of our armed services, the Pentagon itself. If there was ever any question that the firefighters who wear the uniforms of local agencies are from time to time called upon to serve as partners with the men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military, those questions I think have been laid to rest forever. The sad new reality is that when terrorists target civilian populations on American soil, we are going to need, more than ever, our rescue services to be as well equipped as they possibly can be. I have mentioned fire departments and, obviously, police departments. This bill covers emergency medical teams as well, EMS services. Again, they responded in heroic fashion from Virginia, Maryland, DC, New Jersey, Connecticut and, of course, New York. Many of us went to ground zero in New York City. Many colleagues met people from their States, firefighters from North Carolina, Colorado, California--people who responded from across this country to be in New York to assist those departments that had lost more than 350 of their brothers and sisters. So this is a national issue. It directly relates to the security of our country. We do not send our soldiers into battle without the training and equipment they need. We can no longer abide a system that would send firefighters to do their jobs without the proper training or equipment that they need. Last year, Congress passed the Fire Fighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. Again, without Carl Levin and John Warner, the equipment some of these departments received would not have happened. So I offer the amendment again on this bill not because this is the only opportunity. In a sense, this is a national security issue, a new national security, a new definition of what we are talking about. At that time, we authorized 2 years of appropriations under the FIRE Act. Unfortunately, the levels of authorization did not anticipate the new threats that have become apparent in recent weeks. Last year, Congress appropriated $100 million to provide grant funding under the FIRE Act to departments across the Nation. The Federal Emergency Management Administration recently reported that it received grant applications from nearly 20,000 local fire departments. The total amount of funding requested by these departments is nearly $3 billion. That is the existing need. We appropriated $100 million, but there were $3 billion in requests from 20,000 departments across the Nation. Today these firefighters are not just racing with the old hook and ladder down the old country lane to put out the barn fire. They are dealing with toxic waste, toxic substances, some of the most dangerous material in the world, and they are going to be called on, unfortunately, to deal with more of it in the years ahead. Therefore, they need the support this amendment will offer them. Last year, there was about $2.8 billion of unfunded requests under the Fire Grant Program. I do not think we can afford to have that level of unmet needs this year or ever again for that matter. This amendment will assure the continuation of the Fire Grant Program. It will increase the Federal Government's commitment to a level I think is appropriate in light of recent events and the continuing threat to the safety of the American public. Under current law, authorization for the fire program terminates at the end of fiscal year 2002. This amendment would extend the authorization period until the end of the fiscal year 2004. Further, the current law only authorizes about $300 million for the fiscal year 2002. This amendment would authorize an appropriation of up to $600 million for the purchase of emergency response equipment and training. The amendment would also authorize up to $800 million in 2003 and up to $1 billion in 2004. To put it in perspective, the COPS Program, which most of us endorse and support, is around $11 billion. We are taking about $1 billion for firefighters and some 30,000 departments across the country. None of us have ever suggested parity, although one might make a case in light of the events of September 11 considering what these men and women have to deal with, the materials they grapple with, and the training they are going to need. We have not asked for that. It is the authorization levels I mentioned increasing through the year 2004. There may remain other improvements, by the way, that could and should be made to our emergency response infrastructure. I intend to work very closely with the Commerce Committee. This is naturally and normally a matter under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. I express my gratitude to Fritz Hollings, our colleague from South Carolina, and John McCain, the Senator from Arizona, who, not unlike Senator Levin and Senator Warner, have been chair and ranking member back and forth. Last year, with their support, we adopted the amendment as part of the DOD authorization bill. I am grateful to Senator Hollings for his support of this amendment. They have a very important role to play. We have to come back at some point and start talking about other things that can be done. Given the fact we are going to be winding up this session and there are very few vehicles available to us on which to have an authorization matter considered, given the history of this act and its association with the DOD authorization bill and the direct linkage between better equipping the ability of our fire departments across this country to deal with the new threats our communities face, I think this bill is an appropriate place for this amendment. I am very grateful to all of our colleagues for their willingness to consider these extraordinary circumstances. My hope is that this evening we can adopt this amendment on a voice vote. I am not interested in having a recorded vote. I think most of our colleagues will support it. My hope is that we will complete action and leave the Record open so others who may want to comment on this can. I have dedicated this amendment to the men and women who lost their lives in the fire departments on September 11. There are a lot of ways they can be memorialized and communities are doing that across the country. If you talk to your local departments, there is no better way to memorialize them than to see to it future firefighters have the equipment and training they will need. Hopefully, they will not have to use it. Hopefully, they will never have to face what New York City or Northern Virginia faced with the attack on the Pentagon, but if it occurs, I want to be able to say that this Congress and this Chamber provided them the tools and training necessary to respond to those tragedies; that we were not so shortsighted that we did not understand the new world we entered as a result of the attacks on our country only 2 weeks ago. Again, I urge the adoption of this amendment. This is one area where I know there are likely to be remaining issues, as I said, to be discussed. But as we continue to identify critical staffing needs and better ways to structure the Federal Government's partnership with local firefighters, I will be looking to Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain and the Commerce Committee to continue to provide leadership in this area. There is no shortage of bravery among the men and women of America's fire service. Even when commercial air travel was completely shut down, public safety workers from as far away as Chicago and Texas made their way to New York and the Pentagon to lend their assistance. We have seen that public safety personnel are extraordinary people. They put the needs of others before their own interests and even before their own personal safety. During the initial rush to save people in the burning World Trade Center Towers, nobody stopped to ask: Why are you here? But if they had, the answer undoubtedly would have come back: Because people need our help. Tonight we can provide service to those who provided help in the past by helping them. This amendment honors America's firefighters, acknowledges the men and women who do not ask why, the men and women who simply do what must be done. This amendment is more than that. It is an investment in America's security. This will help America be prepared for come what may. Let the world be on notice that we are not afraid, but we are also going to be prepared, and we are also going to prevail. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, let these remarks reflect as well, he is absolutely correct. We focus on New York, the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon. He is absolutely correct the people of Pennsylvania, those who lost their lives in that aircraft--we do not know the whole story, but many of us suspect that the people inside that plane played a very heroic role, and the fact we are standing in this building today debating these issues may very well be because some very heroic civilian Americans stood up and took on some people and saved countless other lives. That mark in Pennsylvania and those who responded to it deserve equal recognition. The Senator from Virginia is absolutely correct. I see my friend from North Carolina is about to speak, and since my friend from Michigan raised the issue of my newborn Grace, I must tell the Senator from North Carolina we received some wonderful little gifts for new Grace and all of them are cherished, but the Senator from North Carolina and his beloved Dot sent a little teddy bear which, if you extend it, it plays music. I want to tell the Senator I will forever be grateful to my colleague from North Carolina because I have tried all sorts of ways to quiet Grace down but nothing works like that little music box. I thank the Senator immensely for that token and gesture, and I thank his lovely wife as well. I say to my colleague from North Carolina, I thought of him many times at 3 this morning.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to share with my colleagues my expressions of gratitude to our President, President Bush, and his team as they have conducted the affairs of our state over these last number of days since the tragedy of September 11. As has been said over and over again, both in this Chamber and elsewhere, they have done, I think, a superlative job. They have done so with the complete, total cooperation of the distinguished majority leader, Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader in the House, Richard Gephardt, along with Speaker Hastert and, of course, the minority leader, Senator Lott, and others. The past days have been a wonderful expression of the kind of unity and support that the country expected, and, I think, deserved. We are on the right track, in my view. None of us knows, as the President said so eloquently just a few feet from here in the other Chamber almost a week ago, if we can say with any certainty what course this response of ours will take or how long it will take--but we know the outcome. And the outcome for certain is that democracy will trump terrorists. It may take us weeks or months--even years--but I stand with those who say that in the final analysis, maybe long after those of us who are Members of this Chamber today are gone from our service here, we will prevail. And to those who share our values and commitment to the eradication of international terrorism, we stand with them. So it is with that as a backdrop, in a way, that I rise to speak this afternoon, because I was so disheartened to be in my office a little while ago to hear the proposal of an amendment or two that would be offered next week to the Department of Defense authorization bill. I listened just about 2 hours ago to my President speak to the employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, along with George Tenet, the Director. The President's words were once again eloquent, and certainly captured my feelings, my sense of gratitude to the men and women who work in our intelligence-gathering agencies for the tremendous job they do, under tremendous pressures, with tremendously high expectations. The President, once again, reminded his audience there, as he has the American audience, and the audience of this world, that the ultimate outcome of this effort we are now undertaking will absolutely, without any equivocation, depend upon international cooperation. The idea, somehow, that the United States, with all of our strength-- economically, militarily--will be able unilaterally to seek out, find, and destroy international terrorism is a myth. I know there are those who suggest we may be left with no one else but ourselves to deal with this. That may be the case. I doubt it, but it may be the case. But the idea that somehow we are going to be able to, on our own, go after terrorism, in what the President has described as at least 60 other nations that harbor these groups, is totally a myth. What is going to be absolutely essential, if we are going to succeed--and I have no doubt we will--in dealing with this problem, for however long it takes, will be cooperation by our allies, by friends, by even some who may not be our friends today but who share the common goal of eradicating the scourge of terrorism. That is going to require a herculean effort, on behalf of our people, by very bright, sophisticated leaders. I happen to think we have those leaders. I have great confidence in General Colin Powell, the Secretary of State. We have not always agreed over the years on various matters, but he is a patriot, a person who understands the kind of world in which we live. I think Don Rumsfeld demonstrated, beyond any question of a doubt, his courage and patriotism on September 11, as he stayed in the bunker of the Pentagon during the assault on that institution. I have no doubt that Condoleezza Rice too will serve our country well--I continue down the list. I think these are not just good people, they are bright people. They are competent people who can do a good job to go out and develop and build those relationships. Whether this problem is solved diplomatically, militarily, or by a combination of the two, it is going to require international cooperation. Mr. President, why do I focus on this? Because I hear that we are about to vote and consider an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill that would absolutely prohibit the United States from being involved in developing a court of international justice, an international criminal court. I cannot believe that at this hour this great body of the U.S. Senate is about to go on record, at the very moment we are asking the world to join us in apprehending the thugs and criminals who took 6,000 lives in New York and several hundred here in Washington, that this Chamber, this body, this Government, at this hour, would say we will have nothing to do with the establishment of an international criminal court. So I come to the Chamber to express my outrage that we might consider such a proposal. I do not object to the notion that, as presently crafted, the treaty of the Rome statute, which would establish the court, is flawed. In fact, if, for some reason, miraculously the proposal were brought to this Senate Chamber this afternoon, and I were asked to vote on it as is, I would vote against it because it is a flawed agreement. But that is not to say we should not stay at the table to try to work it out so that it becomes a viable product which we can support and gather behind. So when I hear, on the one hand, how we need to develop international cooperation to go after these people, and we turn around and walk away from an institution which could make a significant contribution to dealing with this problem, I find it stunning. My fervent hope would be if, for whatever reason, this matter, as it is presently structured, comes up for a vote, that we would vote against it. I do not know what vehicles may be available to me, but I am going to strenuously object to the idea we would consider such a proposal. God knows that the horrific acts we witnessed 2 weeks ago suggest that an international forum for bringing to justice those who commit terrorist acts or acts against humanity is now more needed than ever. Let me step back a little bit in history, if I can. It was the United States, at the end of World War II, under our leadership, that created the U.N. system. With all of its warts, with all of its shortcomings, with its mounds of bureaucracy that infuriate from time to time, I do not know of any sensible person who believes that the world would be a safer or better place in the absence of that building on the East River in New York, where the world can gather to resolve, or attempt to resolve, some of the most difficult disputes and problems we face. It has not solved all of them by any stretch--and I can't prove a negative; I don't know how many were avoided because of its existence-- but I happen to believe that most people--reasonable people--believe that the establishment of a U.N. system has been a worthwhile endeavor. It has made the last 50 years, with all of its various problems around the globe, a safer 50 years than it would have been had that institution not existed. What a great irony it is that the very people who understood the value of having a U.N. system--people such as General George Marshall, people such as Harry Truman, people who came after in terms of the wisdom of our foreign policy, the John Foster Dulles giants, who said we really do need to establish these forums to try to act as a buffer, as a place where some of these efforts can be resolved without using the historic means of resolution; and that is armed confrontation--how ironic, indeed, that this great Nation, which fought tooth and nail to establish the U.N. system, the genocide convention is now shirking its international duty. In fact, you will forgive me if I indulge in a little personal observation. As some of my colleagues here are aware, I was a 1-year- old child in 1945 when my father left my mother and five of us to go to a place called Nuremberg where for the next year and a half he was an executive trial counsel at the first Nuremberg trials. I grew up as a child, after my father returned, hearing about what that tribunal had tried to accomplish, what it had been able to do, and how my father in many ways regretted there had not been in the 1930s such a forum in existence where we might have been able to bring a thug like Adolf Hitler to justice. He would often say the existence of a criminal tribunal that could take the Hitlers and Milosevics to task might just have avoided the problems that later emerged. It is stunning to me, as I have said already, that at this very moment where we have watched the most significant and historic attack on innocent civilians in our Nation's history, and where we are calling with one voice for international cooperation to help find not only those responsible but to develop a system that would minimize these events from occurring again, that we might take a step away from the establishment of a forum that would be a place where those who are responsible could be brought to a bar of justice. We saw the difficulty that occurred when we finally were able to determine who was responsible for the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103, and we know how hard it was to find a forum where those people could be tried. It ultimately took a Scottish court and significant negotiations to bring those criminals to justice. Had we had an International Criminal Court as we do today in the Hague for other such matters, we might have had a forum where that matter could have been resolved without going through the difficulties we saw. One of the arguments that has been raised is that we don't want young men and women in uniform, who are going out today to the far corners of the world to deal with this issue, to be apprehended and tried before some kangaroo court. I do not want that either. But whether we are a part of drafting this agreement or not, it may get established--in fact, it is likely to--without our participation. And our young men and women in uniform are going to be subjected to that jurisdiction whether we like it or not. The fact that we are not a signatory to the court doesn't mean that somehow our servicemen and women are exempt from its jurisdiction. All it means is that when we retreat from helping craft this court our ability to structure it in a way that would minimize the threat of innocent men and women in uniform being brought before it is gone. The message we are sending right now is that we are going to walk away from this process and leave our young men and women subjected to the potential vagaries of such a court because we do not want to be involved in the discussions surrounding its creation. This amendment is called, ironically, the American Servicemen's Protection Act. It is anything but. The establishment of this amendment places our men and women in uniform in greater jeopardy than they would be if we were to participate in trying to develop the structures of this court to minimize problems. We are simply sticking a finger, at the very hour we ought to be doing otherwise, in the eyes of our friends. Clearly, war criminals and terrorists must be thrilled at the notion that an international bar of justice continues to be blocked by their arch enemy, the United States of America. I am prepared to take whatever steps I can in the next few days to see to it that this amendment is defeated. It was in this very Chamber on the night of September 10 that I stood and objected to the Craig amendment, which eliminated all funding for us to get involved in establishment of this court. I was urged not to ask my colleagues for a recorded vote. I didn't. I regret so now. Within less than 24 hours of that night, we saw an international act of terrorism take the lives of many of our fellow citizens. I am not suggesting the adoption or the defeat of that amendment would have changed the course of history, but how ironic that on the eve of the September 11th attack, this body went on record as saying we are not even going to finance a commission of the United States to go in and try and improve the Rome treaty, to try to make it more workable and more acceptable to the United States. That amendment was adopted as part of the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill. The question now is whether or not we are going to take the language under this so-called American Servicemen's Protection Act and incorporate it as part of the Department of Defense authorization bill. I am disheartened because I understand that the administration, despite the fact they had expressed some opposition to such an approach only a few days ago, has now decided to give their endorsement to this proposal in exchange for which apparently the Republican leadership in the House are going to release the U.N. arrearages. That is the tradeoff apparently. To their credit, the administration has negotiated some waiver authority in these proposals. But the overall message we are sending to the international community is a terrible one, in my view. On the one hand, the Secretary has called on everyone to stand with us, while on the other hand, we are once again suggesting that we can go it alone. It is contradictory, to say the very least. It is just like the approach we have taken on too many other issues. I won't go into all of them here. But if we are going to be asking the world to cooperate, we have to send a better message on some of these other issues. I favor increased security measures here at home as well as additional authorities for law enforcement. I will take a back seat to no one in our common determination to improve the quality of safety in this country. But as all of my colleagues, I believe it ought to be done thoughtfully so that we don't wake up one day and find that our Nation as we know it exists no longer. I don't want my country to become a gated community internationally. I don't want to have to go through all sorts of walls and metal detectors to get in to visit some friends. I want my country to still be a free and open place. I want us to be engaged in the world. You can't be a gated community in the international sense and also be a major player globally and economically. You certainly are not going to be successful in going after terrorists if you decide we are going to become a gated community and retreat from international agreements. Then the terrorists victory is vastly in excess of what it was on September 11. That day they destroyed buildings and took lives and we will never forget their actions. But if beyond that they are also able to do things to cause us to walk away from international agreements and create that gated community here at home, then their victory is far beyond the terrible success they had only a few short days ago. I hope my colleagues over the weekend will give some thought to this amendment. Don't be deceived by the title. It is anything but protecting our service men and women. Finally, it seems to me that it is time to be honest with ourselves about why international terrorism has become such a growing threat. We need only look into the oppressed faces of citizens of some of the governments we, frankly, have supported despite their less than acceptable treatment of their own citizenry over the years. The children, teenagers, of many of these countries grow up hating their leaders and, frankly, our own country for keeping them in power, supporting them as they stay in power. These young people become foot soldiers who are all too readily persuaded by the likes of the Osama bin Ladens of this world that violence is the answer to their grievances. And I would hope, as we analyze what we need to do at home to protect our security and how we can play a more constructive role internationally and build those coalitions that are essential for our long-term success in overcoming this threat, that we also take time to stand up to some of these regimes and be on the side of humanity everywhere. Our Founding Fathers did not only talk about those in the United States when they talked about inalienable rights; they wisely wrote about all people, not only those who lived within the borders of the then-Thirteen Colonies of what would constitute the United States. They spoke to the aspirations and hopes of other people as well. We are that legacy, if you will. We are the generations that will come after to perpetuate those very values. This is a vastly different world than those who founded this country faced. Today, we are talking about billions of people around the globe, and about a nation whose power is vastly in excess of what is was 220 years ago. If we are going to live up to the ideals incorporated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, then we need to understand and hear those voices out there who cry out for some leadership, cry out for advocates. We ought to step back and look and see whether or not our short-term policy needs are satisfying the long- term security needs of the Nation. We must also come to grips with the Muslim faith. That doesn't mean trying to keep secular governments in place in countries where the will of the people is otherwise. It means beginning to understand the underlying premises of that faith, and by conveying our respect. It means a commitment by our Government to spend resources so that we understand them better. That is what President Kennedy was trying to do when he created the Peace Corps 40 years ago. The Peace Corps is a wonderful organization. I was proud to have been a member of the Peace Corps some 35 years ago. However, it has not been as active, in my view, as it could have been, particularly in Muslim countries where we might have been better served by having hundreds of thousands of young Americans working in those poor communities. It is not an easy task for the Peace Corps to go everywhere, but the focus should be on those areas where the need is the greatest like Afghanistan and Pakistan and Indonesia. Taking the time to recruit the people with the language skills and ability and knowledge of these cultures could do an awful lot to change some of the anti-American attitudes we see, in my view. We should be getting started now so that in the aftermath of the military actions we are going to take, particularly in some of the Muslim countries, we will be ready to show a different face of our country, one that isn't simply militarily strong, but one that also incorporates justice and humanity and respect for religious faiths, in accordance with the true principles deeply imbedded in our own value systems that call for the exercise of freedom in our own Nation. It is time to take a hard look at our path. Yes, we need to act in the coming days to address the immediate threats, as I mentioned already--the challenges confronting our Nation in the international community that stem from the tragedy at the World Trade Center and our Pentagon. But we have to take a longer and harder look at those actions at home and abroad that will make not only ourselves safer, but the world safer for our citizens and the citizens of this globe. History will judge how we act, not only in the short term, protecting our shores, which is our primary responsibility, but also the kind of framework we establish and the kind of reaching out that will be necessary. So when the history of our generation is written on how we responded to this great crisis at home, historians will write about a great nation that did not close its doors and create a gated community, but truly reached out to the international community and respected the rights of all human beings and made an effort to understand the grievances that built up in the ranks of these madmen terrorists that allowed them to carry out their savage attacks as they did on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is a complicated task. The world is looking to us. We are the greatest power on the face of the Earth--economically, politically, and militarily. They are looking to see how we respond to this. If next week we adopt amendments here that walk away from international criminal courts, and we just go in militarily and don't understand what is behind some of these reactions we are seeing in these places, then I think history will judge us harshly. So our first responsibility is to protect our citizens--not just the generation we presently represent, but the generations we also represent who are yet unborn whose very fate may be determined by the actions we take in the coming days. I have no doubt that President George Walker Bush and his team are not only competent but are dedicated and have the ability to lead us. They have a Congress and a nation that wants to follow them. I only urge that they act wisely and not cut deals and make arrangements for short-term success that could do our Nation some very long-term harm. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to consider the nomination of John Negroponte to be the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. I was unable to attend yesterday's hearing because I was with my wife Jackie attending the birth of our daughter Grace. I believe that it was very important yesterday that the Committee hearing focused in part on a careful review of new information that has come to light related to Ambassador Negroponte's tenure in Honduras during 1981-85 to see whether Congress had been kept fully informed about all aspects of U.S. policy with respect to Honduras during his watch. I recognize, that this is not a normal week for the Senate or for the American people. President Bush has indicated that he wants the United States to be represented by an Ambassador at the United Nations as quickly as possible, particularly in light of this week's tragic events. I don't disagree with that view. However, the Foreign Relations Committee did have a responsibility to review the questions raised in connection with this nomination. They discharged that responsibility yesterday. The Committee has proceeded expeditiously, professionally and fairly with Ambassador Negroponte's nomination. It requested and receive documents from the State Department and CIA. Those documents were reviewed, consisting of several thousand pages, the committee proceeded with the hearing yesterday and today the Senate is ready to act. There have been no undue delays. Let's review the time line of this nomination to date. The President announced his intent to nominate Ambassador Negroponte for the U.N. post on March 6. The nomination was not submitted to the Senate, however, until May 14, nearly four months into the Administration, by contrast, Madeleine Albright was nominated for the U.N. post on January 20, 1993 and confirmed six days later. On May 3, over a week before the nomination was submitted, the Committee Democrats wrote the President to request that the Administration provide documents to the Committee so it could review issues related to Negroponte's tenure in Honduras. On May 8, Committee staff submitted a list of requested documents to representatives of the White House and the State Department. The last document responsive to the original request of May 8 was not provided, however, until late July. The Committee staff reviewed several thousand pages of documents responsive to the request and determined that a number of documents which were still classified contained important information on questions raised about Ambassador Negroponte's tenure in Honduras. The chairman of the committee then requested that the State Department and CIA undertake a review of documents within the committee's possession that remained classified with a goal of making public as much information as possible in order to shed additional light on what role if any the United States played in the human rights abuses that were perpetrated against the Honduran people in the first half of the 1980s, and specifically what knowledge or involvement the United States Ambassador, at the time Mr. Negroponte, had in those abuses. The committee also offered to begin hearings prior to the August recess on U.N. issues, with another hearing to follow in September on issues related to Negroponte's service in Honduras. The administration chose to wait until September to begin the hearing process. So we are talking about a period of approximately fourteen weeks of working days of the Senate from the time the nomination was submitted until today. This compares quite favorably when compared to the Holbrooke nomination which took from February 1999 to August 1999 . Some conservative columnists have suggested that I and others are trying to re-fight the Central America conflict of the 1980's. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, I would argue that there is an effort underway in some quarters to rewrite the history of U.S. involvement in that conflict and sweep under the rug how politically painful and damaging that policy was. In the early 1980's, the Congress and the American people were told that the United States had no involvement in using Honduras in as a staging ground for a convert Contra program to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. Later, when the so called second Boland amendment cutting off assistance to the Contra was passed we were told that the United States was not violating that provision of law. That of course proved to be untruth as the Iran Contra Investigation demonstrated. Similarly we were told that the Honduran military was not as a matter of policy violating human rights of its citizens or that the Salvadoran High Command had no known or culpability for the torture and murder of the American church women or the Jesuit priests. Of course we now know that none of that was in fact true. It is indisputable that this fabric of untruths and half truths caused deep fissures in the Congressional-Executive branch relationship and in the trust of the American people in their government. Those fissures will only be fully healed if there is honesty and full candor between the Executive and the Congress. Our policy was also controversial throughout Central America. Tens of thousands of Central Americans lost their lives during the 1980's, many at the hands of their own governments. Tens of thousands more had their lives permanently marred by losses of loved ones. Fortunately, in 1987 Central American leaders took their fate into their own hands and crafted the Central America Peace Agreement. President George H. Bush, upon coming to office in 1989 embraced the peace agreement and reached out to the Congress in order to de-politicize Central America. Elections followed in Nicaragua, as did a negotiated settlement to the civil conflict in El Salvador. Honduras ceased to be a staging area for the U.S. backed contras. El Salvador and Honduras have undertaken to come to grips with the past by attempting to investigate and assign responsibility for the atrocities that occurred in their respective countries as an important step in the process of peace and reconciliation. Since Ambassador Negroponte was last confirmed by the Senate as Ambassador to the Philippines in 1993, a great deal of new information has come to light about the nature and extent of human rights abuses during his tenure in Honduras. This information also raised questions about the appropriateness of the U.S. Embassy's response and about whether Ambassador Negroponte had been forthright with the Committee in 1989 when I asked him questions about these matters. How has this new information come to light? It is the result of a number of investigations into this subject from 1992-1998: First in 1992, Leo Valladares, the Honduran National Commissioner for the Protection of Human Rights undertook to catalog the disappearances and other human rights abuses that occurred in Honduras in the eighties. That investigation is still ongoing. Prompted by the Valladares investigation the Baltimore Sun's undertook its own year long investigation which resulted in 1995 in a four part series detailing human rights abuses by a special Honduran military intelligence unit, the so called Battalion 316, and U.S. embassy links to that unit, and knowledge thereof. In 1996, this led CIA Director John Deutch to establish a Special Working Group within the agency to assess whether the allegations raised by the series were valid. Finally, the CIA Director tasked the CIA's Inspector General to resolve specific questions raised by the Working Group as it related to the death of an American citizen, Father James Carney, and about the CIA's relationship with members of the Honduran military who may have committed human rights abuses before or doing that relationship. The picture that emerges in analyzing this new information is a troubling one. Some of the key facts that the Committee put on public record during yesterday's hearing thanks to the cooperation of the State Department and CIA are the following: One, during 1980-84, the Honduran military committed most of the hundreds of human rights abuses reported in Honduras. These abuses were often politically motivated and officially sanctioned; two, Honduran military units were trained by the U.S.--members of these units have been linked to death squad activities such as killings, disappearances, and other human rights abuses; three, the CIA's reporting of human rights abuses was inconsistent. Reporting inadequacies precluded CIA headquarters from understanding the scope of human rights abuses; four, the responsibility for monitoring and taking action against domestic subversion in Honduras was first the responsibility of a special unit of the Public Security Forces, FUSEP; five, at the recommendation of a joint U.S./Honduran military seminar, this responsibility was transferred in early 1984 to a new unit (which came to be known as Battalion 316) under the supervision of the Military Intelligence Division of the Armed Forces General Staff; and six, the FUSEP special unit and Battalion 316 counter terrorist tactics included torture, rape and assassination against persons thought to be involved in support of the Salvadoran guerrillas or part of the Honduran leftist movement; seven, as many as 250 instances of human rights abuses in Honduras are officially documented, including disappearances, torture, extra judicial killings; and eight, at least one death squad was known to have operated during 1980-84. This death squad was called ELACH, The Honduran Anti-Communist Liberation Army. There is information linking this death squad to chief of the National Intelligence Directorate of the Honduran Public Security Forces. When Ambassador Negroponte came before the committee in 1989 in the context of his nomination to the position of US Ambassador to Mexico, I asked him a number of questions related to his tenure in Honduras, two questions dealt with human rights. Given what we know about the extent and nature of Honduran human rights abuses, to say that Mr. Negroponte was less than forthcoming in his responses to my questions is being generous. I would ask that the my exchange with Ambassador Negroponte during that hearing in printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DODD. I know there will be those who say, that it isn't terribly important that the Honduran military committed human rights abuses more than fifteen years ago in some cases. Moreover, in relative terms those abuses in Honduras paled in comparison to what to else where in Central America. My response to that is that the Senate has a duty and responsibility to be a partner in the fashioning of U.S. foreign policy, and the only way it can be a full partner is if we in this body are kept fully informed. When it came to our ability to be full partners with respect to U.S. toward Honduras or elsewhere in Central America, I would tell you that we were unable to do that because we were flying blind. It gives me great pause as I ponder how to vote on this nomination to think that someone as intelligent and capable as Ambassador Negroponte would treat this committee and this body so cavalierly in his responses to my questions. I wonder who he thinks he works for? I was also troubled by Ambassador Negroponte's unwillingness to admit, that as a consequence of other U.S. policy priorities, the U.S. embassy, by acts of omissions ending up shading the truth about the extent and nature of ongoing human rights abuses in the 1980s. Moreover, in light of all the new information that I have just mentioned, I do not know how Ambassador Negroponte can continue to believe that it was simply ``deficiencies in the Honduran legal system coupled with insufficient professionalism of law enforcement authorities that ``led at times to abuses of authority by Honduran police officials.'' And, quoting his written answer to a committee question on this subject that, ``I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that these abuses were part of a deliberate government policy.'' The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights had no such reluctance in assigning blame to the Honduran government during its adjudication of a case brought against the Government of Honduras by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in 1987. In deciding the case of Honduran citizen Velasquez Rodriquez the Court found that ``a practice of disappearances carried out or tolerated by Honduran officials existed between 1981-84.'' And, as I mentioned earlier, based upon an extensive review of U.S. intelligence information by the CIA Working Group in 1996, the CIA is prepared to stipulate that ``during the 1980-84 period, the Honduran military committed most of the hundreds of human rights abuses reported in Honduras. These abuses were often politically motivated and officially sanctioned.'' Moreover, Mr. Negroponte should have been forewarned to look for signs of government sponsored human rights abuses in light of concerns that his predecessor Ambassador Jack Binns, a career foreign service officer, had raised with the State Department concerning the mind set of the architect of Honduras' domestic countersubversion program with respect to a willingness to extrajudicial means in the context of such programs. Ambassador Binns was speaking about General Gustavo Alvarez who became Commander in Chief of the Honduran Armed Forces in 1982, and who had been Commander of Honduran Public Security Forces, FUSEP, from 1980-82. Based upon the Committee's review of State Department and CIA documents, it would seem that Ambassador Negroponte knew far more about government perpetuated human rights abuses than he chose to share with the committee in 1989 or in Embassy contributions at the time to annual State Department Human Rights reports. For example, a Negroponte cable summarizing meetings between Congressman Solarz and Honduran government officials in January 1985 makes note of a Honduran official's concerns about future human rights abuses due to ``fears that there might still be some ``secret operating cells'' left from the Alvarez era,'' here referring to General Alvarez who had headed the Honduran armed forces until he was removed in 1984 by his fellow officers. I don't quite know the difference between a ``death squad'' and ``secret operating cells'', but since Ambassador Negroponte is officially on record as saying that no death squads existed in Honduras during his tenure, there must be some difference. There are also discrepancies with respect to when he became aware of certain cases where Honduran authorities were secretly detaining and torturing Hondurans suspected of subversion. And how he chose to report those cases to Washington. The case of dual national Ines Consuelo Murillo comes most readily to mind. Her detention and torture was described in detail on April 15, 1995 in the Baltimore Sun. These are but a few examples. There were others which taken together, paint a very mixed picture of whether the U.S. embassy was doing much to discourage Honduran government practices or how comprehensively it was collecting and reporting on such abuses. Having said that, there were no ``smoking guns'' in the documents that have been provided to the Committee. I know that this week is not just any week. I also know that the President is anxious to have an ambassador at the United Nations is a high priority, particularly in light of recent events. I will not stand in the way of the Senate moving forward with this nomination. I believe that yesterday's decision by the Committee on Foreign Relations to put on the public record all the additional declassified information that it has compiled in reviewing this nomination will contribute to the healing and reconciliation that is still ongoing in Honduras. Finally I would say a word of caution to other career foreign service officers, particularly junior officers, that they not consider this nominee's lack of candor before the committee as a model to be emulated. A United States Ambassador is a representative of the United States Government and ultimately works for the American people. That means that our ambassadors have an obligation to be truthful and forthcoming in relations with Congress as we are the people's representatives. If they are under instruction to withhold information as a matter of policy they should say so. Then, we can take it up with their superiors if we choose to do so. In my estimation, Mr. Negroponte did neither in his dealings with the Congress. I am deeply saddened to come to that judgement. Having said that Ambassador Negroponte has had a distinguished career and on balance has discharged his responsibilities ably and honorably. For that reason, I intend to give him the benefit of the doubt in light of how extremely polarized relations between the Congress and the Executive were over U.S. policy in Central America when he was serving as Ambassador in Honduras. I will therefore support his nomination to the position of the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate voted unanimously to authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to respond to the attacks launched by terrorists on Tuesday. Those responsible for these heinous attacks must never be allowed to do so again. For that reason we have also taken note of the President's authority to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States, consistent with provisions of the War Powers Act. There may be times when the President must act swiftly to preempt an imminent act of violence. In such cases, he may not be able to consult closely with Congress beforehand. However, as a general rule, in the exercise of the authority that we have just approved, it is my expectation that the President and his advisers will consult with the Congress before taking action is contemplated by the War Powers Act. Equally important, the U.S. Senate also voted unanimously to appropriate, on an emergency basis, some $40 billion in additional resources to enable New York City and the Washington, DC, area to cope effectively with the aftermath of the devastation wrought by those attacks. In addition, we have provided resources to enable the United States to counter domestic and international terrorism, enhance transportation security, and to undertake additional programs to enhance our national security. We have taken up and passed these two measures on an expedited basis because our national interests dictate that we do. The House will do so later today as well. The Congress has an obligation to reassure the American people that their government is working to do everything in its power to protect them from such heinous acts in the future, as well as to provide funding so that the cleanup and rebuilding efforts can proceed as quickly as possible. I believe that we are all in agreement that those individuals who were responsible for the premeditated murder of so many of our citizens must be found and stopped from ever conducting such actions again. Anyone who has aided, abetted or continues to harbor these terrorists is a terrorist as well. So too are those who knowingly facilitate the financial transactions that keep their organizations in business. While we do not know with 100 percent certainty that Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden is the mastermind of this latest tragedy, we know full well based on past experience that he is fully capable of doing so. The President has directed that all of our intelligence resources be brought to bear to develop credible evidence as to who was in fact responsible. I am confident that we will have much better information in that regard in the very near future. And, when that moment arrives I believe we will act appropriately, consistent with our principles and values. Sadly Osama bin Laden is not the only individual who harbors irrational hatred against the United States. Many others around the globe do as well. I would call to the attention of my colleagues a very important article that appeared in today's Washington Post entitled ``Zinni Urges Economic and Diplomatic Moves.'' In that article, ret. General Anthony C. Zinni cautions against an approach that is single pronged in attempting to eradicate terrorist organizations. An approach of simply bombing them back to the stone age may have appeal to some, but will, according to General Zinni, only perpetuate the problem by inflaming Anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. Zinni urges the Bush administration to accompany any military action taken against Afghanistan or other states that harbor terrorists, with economic and diplomatic measures as well. Other governments in the region, Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, must be prepared to assist the United States in this multifaceted strategy. There is another element to the problem of countering international terrorism over the longer term, namely the Middle East conflict. That conflict has fueled the hatred, sense of injustice, and hopelessness that has provided and will continue to provide the foot soldiers of the Osama bin Laden's of this world. The Bush administration must make resolution of the Middle East conflict a higher priority than it has to date. Only with United States leadership will we galvanize our allies in Europe, and moderate Arab States to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Palestinians to stop the violence and come back to the bargaining table so that a formula can be found that will permit Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace. Only with peace will we be able to prevent the emergence of another generation of terrorists imbued with a burning hatred of the United States.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, obviously the highest priority as a nation is addressing every aspect of the terrorist attacks that took place in our country earlier this week. That is now and should be in the foreseeable future our primary concern as a Senate, a Congress and as a country. Part of responding to that concern includes demonstrating to ourselves and the world that we can carry on the very important business of our country. That business includes election reform. I now address the issue that will become increasingly important as our Nation and our deliberations in Congress return to normal. This is the issue of funding for election reform. I appreciate this opportunity to include an amendment as part of the managers' amendment to H.R. 2500 (S. 1215). This bill contains appropriations for the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 2002. My amendment provides a $2 million placeholder for election reform in fiscal year 2002. These Federal dollars would be used to fund a Federal grant program administered by the Department of Justice to States and localities for election reform improvements nationwide. The amendment that I have crafted is identical to the provision inserted in S. 1398, the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. The Committee on Appropriations included a $2 million placeholder in the Federal Election Commission appropriation for administering a program to award Federal matching grants to States and localities to improve election systems and election administration for fiscal year 2002. The report to accompany that bill, S. Report 107-57, notes the intent of the committee that ``once such a program is enacted into law, the funds should be available to immediately begin this process.'' My provision mirrors this language. Legislation ordered reported by the Rules Committee on August 2, 2001, S. 565 provides for a Federal grant program to the States and localities to fund election reforms, including funds to meet minimum national requirements for voting systems standards and technology, provisional voting, and distribution of sample ballots, with voting instructions and voting rights. The bill funds the grant program through the Department of Justice. The Senate will debate this legislation later this fall. This amendment preserves the ability of the Senate to fund reform through either the Department of Justice, the Federal Election Commission, or both. I firmly believe that it is the obligation of the Congress to provide both the leadership and the resources for election reform. The reforms are necessary to provide guidance to States on election administration and technology and to re-establish public confidence in our elections system. Similarly, the financial resources are essential to support States and localities in implementing, maintaining and weaving those vital election reforms into the fabric of our American democracy. My amendment for a $2 million placeholder is at the same level of support that is currently included in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill for election reform. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. It is essential that we include the $2 million placeholder now to preserve our ability to negotiate actual funding levels for election reform in conference. Further, I also urge my colleagues to support the companion provision for election reform in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill when it is debated on the Senate floor in the near future. I will support both provisions.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a distinguished constituent of mine, Hugh C. Graham, upon the occasion of his retirement from the American Legion Department of Connecticut. As a member of the American Legion for 57 years, Hugh served as an Adjutant for 32 years, the longest-serving Adjutant in the country. During his tenure within this revered national organization, Hugh admirably dedicated himself to promoting the health and well-being of our veterans, both in Connecticut and beyond. Hugh himself served his country with distinction during World War II. Having enlisted with the United States Army in New Haven on February 16, 1942, he served as a rifleman in the 45th Infantry ``Thunderbird'' Division of the 180th Infantry Regiment. For 511 days, he fought bravely in the European theater, seeing combat in Italy, France, and Germany, and participated in five amphibious assault landings. For his valor and wounds received at Anzio Beach, Hugh was awarded the Purple Heart Medal. He was also awarded the European-African Theater Medal with five campaign stars, the World War II Victory Medal, and the Combat Infantryman's Badge. Hugh received an honorable discharge from the Army on September 5, 1945. Over the years, Hugh's work with and for veterans has received well- deserved recognition from numerous organizations. He has received various service and achievement awards from the Forty and Eight Society, the Veterans Administration, and the American Legion Department of Rhode Island. Although Hugh is retiring from active duty in the American Legion, I know that he will continue to promote veterans affairs and that his legacy will live on within the organization. Once again, I would like to congratulate Hugh upon the occasion of his retirement and I sincerely thank him for all of the service he has given to both Connecticut and our nation. I wish him all my best in his future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Delaware for not only his managing this resolution but also for his eloquent remarks a few moments ago. I also commend the distinguished majority leader, Senator Daschle, and the distinguished minority leader, Senator Lott, and their respective leadership teams for the dignity and manner in which they conducted business in this body yesterday. I also commend the President of the United States for his very eloquent remarks last evening to the Nation. I commend Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense for his efforts yesterday and for staying on the job while the Pentagon was burning. I know there were probably those on his staff and elsewhere who urged him to leave. I presume they made a good case for it. But I admire the fact that Don Rumsfeld stayed on the job yesterday to be with the men and women who were there--the injured, those who lost their lives, not to mention those who are fighting the blaze and trying to bring that incredible scene under control. This is a very sad time. It has been said by others here this morning, and it will be said repeatedly this afternoon. There are no words I can utter in these next few moments that will serve to lessen the sense of loss that all of us feel as Americans. There is a sense of poignancy to all of this, obviously, if you are from New York. If you had a loved one who worked at the Pentagon, there is a special dimension. And, if you had a loved one on one of the four aircraft yesterday that left Newark, Boston, or Dulles there is a special hurt today. Truly, there is a human dimension to this that we don't have the ability to understand yet. It is a God-given blessing during moments such as this that human beings are incapable of fully understanding and appreciating the depth of loss immediately. It will take days--or longer. Oftentimes what we see with families when a person very close to them is lost, is that in the immediate hours and days after that loss, they function because they have to in order to manage affairs. But the true impact of loss is sometimes not felt for days and weeks afterwards. I think our country is in that state this very day. So, I want to take a few minutes to talk about that human dimension. There will be plenty of time for us to debate bills on the floor of the Senate and to discuss the priorities we ought to have and who should be held responsible. But the human dimension of all of this is something I haven't been able to get my hands around in these last 24 hours. I just can't imagine what it must be like to be one of the victims of these terrorist acts, or to know that there is a loved one trapped somewhere in those buildings in lower Manhattan, or to be the family of a service man or woman who knows that just a few blocks from here their husband, wife, father, sibling, child, or neighbor is lying in the rubble of the Pentagon, or to be the family of one of the passengers on the planes hijacked yesterday. I can't begin to imagine. I want to start by telling those families that every one of us here in Congress wishes there were some way we could express our sense of grief for you. In the days and weeks to come we will try to do that in ways that are meaningful. I would also like to mention the firemen and policemen. We were told last evening that we don't know what the numbers of emergency personnel lost are. There may be several hundreds who lost their lives as they raced into those 110-storey buildings while trying to bring relief to others only to lose their lives in the collapse of those buildings. Again, for those of you who watched the tragedy last year in Wooster, MA, or other places where firemen and emergency services people have given their lives, I suppose in one sense it is not a surprise that the dedication we saw yesterday is seen so frequently around the country, but particularly because of the magnitude of the events yesterday, we are struck by it. And as Senator Biden, Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, and Senator Warner mentioned in their very fine remarks this morning, the people who donated blood and who are offering services deserve our respect and admiration. So I express my gratitude to all of them. We have to respond to yesterday's events, and we will. I have no doubt of this. However, building the kind of international cooperation necessary to do so is awfully difficult. Indeed, if there is a slight glimmer of a silver lining to this tragedy, it may be in the responses our President received yesterday from almost every civilized head of state around the globe--responses of support. Maybe in all of this tragedy and rubble, the possibility that the kind of response the world has been seeking for so many years may emerge like a phoenix from these ashes, and we will be able to forge the kinds of relationships that allow us to stamp out this cancer that has been with us for far too many years in Beirut, in the Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, and other places. I saw the list of victims of past terrorist attacks the other day. It is many pages long--not of the magnitude we saw yesterday, but nonetheless, cumulatively hundreds and thousands of people lost their lives at the hands of fanatics who believe the loss of innocent life is a justifiable means to achieve their extreme ends. So maybe--just maybe--if there is any solace we can offer to the families of the people who have lost their lives, out of this we will begin to deal effectively with the scourge of terrorism. I hope that is the case. I hope the President will work on that, and I know we here in Congress will. It will be important that in the context of being in a rush to respond to this--and there is a passion we all feel that makes one want to strike out and grab somebody and make them pay for what they did that we temper our anger. I hope we have enough sense now to know that when we strike, it needs to be right because the coalition that we need to build to respond to this requires that we act smartly, intelligently, and correctly. If we don't, we run the risk of fracturing the very kind of coalition that will be necessary. These terrorists had a remarkable success yesterday. They utilized American planes and American fuel to use as their bombs. That they went into three major airports, 15 or 20 people, I am told, in teams of 3 or 5, and commandeered 4 aircraft and attacked 2 major sites, economically and militarily, and apparently had a target of a third, politically, is a stunning, stunning set of circumstances. We need to get some answers. Today may not be the day to get them, but I know my colleagues and millions of Americans have questions on their minds. People will have to answer how this could occur in the country. Yet, I come back to the notion of the human element of all of this, and the human element also requires that I speak to those who are Muslims in our country. There has been a lot of chatter over the last 24 hours of who is responsible here--Islamic fundamentalists, Islamic extremists? I don't know if that is right or wrong. I am not privy to that information. But I urge those who want to provide answers to this question to be careful. You only had to listen to the words of Dan Inouye to understand why we should not vilify all members of an ethnic group for the sins of a few individuals. You only need to walk a block away from here to a monument commemorating the imprisonment of thousands of people of Japanese descent 60 years ago. We have wonderful citizens here who are Muslims and practice the Islamic faith. I fear that sometimes in our momentary passions we can indict some wonderful Americans, wonderful people, innocent children in this country who were raised in a very proud and serious religion. So we need to be cautious about the rhetoric we use and the fingers we point before we have the facts before us. Lastly, I say this. I see my friend and colleague from Texas on the floor. On Monday afternoon about 4 o'clock I got a call from a former colleague of ours, Bob Kerrey. He called me from a delivery room in New York to tell me that an hour and a half earlier he became the proud father of a young man named Henry. My colleague from Texas and her wonderful husband have taken on a magnificent responsibility--recently adopting the great love of their lives, Bailey Hutchison. I am going to leave here momentarily and go with my wife to Arlington to see her doctor. We are expecting a new arrival. I can't tell you how proud I am of that blessed event. I want to end on this note and say to young Henry and to Bailey and to my yet unborn child that we are going to build a world for you that is deserving of the kind of place you ought to have. Previous generations did it for us. Certainly, those of our colleagues who served in World War II, Vietnam, Korea, made it possible for us to live in a land of peace and democracy. Our responsibility is no less to future generations. The words ``an act of war'' have been used. I agree with that. We need to respond to this and to build the kind of society to sustain our democratic values, which we have embraced for more than 200 years, through trials and tribulations. To Henry, Bailey, and to this yet unborn child of mine, we commit to you that you will live in a peaceful world. That is our common goal. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the President, and I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Idaho. I do so because it goes back a long time. As a matter of revealing past history, I take great pride in the fact that the person at whose desk I now stand and in whose chair I now sit from time to time was the executive trial counsel at the Nuremberg trials. I was about a year old, a year and 2 months old, when my father went off to Nuremberg as a young lawyer and became an executive trial counsel at the end of those historic trials at the end of World War II. I remember vividly growing up with my father and others of his generation arguing most strongly that had there been in the 1920's or 1930's criminal courts of international justice the tragedies of World War II might have been avoided. He never said it would have been absolutely because obviously that would be an impossibility to predict, but there was no place, there was no forum in which the civilized world could gather, in a sense, to denounce or to indict a madman such as Adolf Hitler. As a result of the world's silence, in many ways, through the 1930's, the events and the tragedies in the latter part of that decade, of course, the events of the first part of the 1940's occurred. So after World War II, there were many highly responsible individuals in this country and elsewhere who argued most strongly for the establishment of such a court. In fact, it was the United States that led the way to establish a United Nations system. It was the Eisenhower administration. In fact, some of the strongest conservatives of that era argued very strongly that it was in the interest of the United States, in our own self-interest, as the leader of free peoples around the globe to have some place where we could indict those who would commit the horrors and tragedies of human rights violations. So it is somewhat ironic--in a way sadly so--that we find ourselves at the outset of the 21st century with the United States apparently leading the charge to see to it that no such organization should ever come into existence. Let me quickly say to my colleagues, I do not at all support the present configuration or proposal on an international criminal court. It is tremendously flawed as a proposal. It is very much in our interest, as a nation, to be at the table to help fashion this court. Ultimately we may vote against it. We may try to see to it that it does not become established. However, there is a great risk that it will become established. In the absence of our participation, it could end up being a lot worse--for us, for men and women in uniform in this country, for the interests of the United States in an ever-shrinking global community. I am deeply concerned, as I am now told the administration is as well, with this amendment as presently proposed. As I understand it, the Craig amendment bars the United States from using funds in support of the International Criminal Court or to continue to participate in meetings of the Preparatory Commission which is working to finalize matters relating to the Court. I think this is a dangerous amendment in many ways. I have proposed language which we have not yet considered in the Foreign Relations Committee dealing with one of the major concerns being raised about the establishment of a criminal court; that is, the vulnerabilities of our men and women in uniform. The legislation that I have drafted is gathering wide-range support. The administration itself finds an awful lot included in the bill that they would like to support. We are working with them to fashion something to meet their support. The adoption of this amendment, however, is a major setback, in my view, in this effort. As currently drafted, the Craig amendment forecloses one of the options the Bush administration is currently reviewing with respect to how to remain actively engaged internationally in support of the rule of law. It is my understanding that the Bush administration strongly opposes, in fact, what our good friend and colleague from Idaho is suggesting with this amendment. Under existing law, the administration is currently prohibited from expending funds in support of the Court. That is the law today. That was adopted in 1999. The law has left the door open for the Bush administration to determine whether or not it wishes to participate in the work of the Preparatory Commission. It makes all the sense in the world to be so involved. The structure of the Preparatory Commission is such that it is charged with finalizing the details of the implementing language of the Court in resolving outstanding definitions, ambiguities, and difficulties with the Rome statute. The Craig amendment closes the door with respect to the possibility of U.S. participation in the Preparatory Commission. This, in my view, is very shortsighted since there are a number of issues which we would want to and should work to resolve or clarify, even if we never decide to become a party to the treaty. Clearly, I am hopeful President Bush will choose to stay part of the Preparatory Commission process, but the decision as to whether or not to do so is up to him, not up to the Congress. Frankly, to prohibit the President from participating in the Preparatory Commission is probably a violation of the President's constitutional treaty power to conduct negotiations with other states on behalf of our own Nation. Moreover, I think this amendment sends a terrible signal just as the international community gathers in New York to listen to President Bush address the United Nations for the first time since coming to office. What message will they derive from yet another U.S. unilateral rejection of internationalism? Perhaps they will take it as a signal that we in the United States no longer intend to be leaders in the international advocacy of the rule of law and human rights. How ironic, how truly ironic that is. How quickly we seem to have forgotten the Holocaust and the international community's decision to convene the Nuremburg trial of the leading Nazi war criminals following World War II, or that this war crimes tribunal was largely an American initiative. Justice Robert Jackson's team drove the process of the drafting of the indictments, the gathering of the evidence, and the conducting of that extraordinary trial. The trial was a landmark in the struggle to deter and punish crimes of war and genocide, setting the stage for the Geneva and Genocide Conventions. The surrender of Slobodan Milosevic to the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia is a strong reminder that war crimes are not a thing of the distant past. At Nuremberg Justice Jackson said: It is common to think of our own time as standing at the apex of civilization. The reality is that in the long perspective of history, the present century will not hold an admirable position, unless its second half is to redeem its first. My father, Thomas Dodd, served as executive trial counsel at the trials at Nuremberg, among his proudest accomplishments as a human being. But it was also part of the common theme that rang through a lifetime of public service. He believed that America had a special role to make the rule of law relevant in every corner of the globe. I believe my father was correct, that Justice Jackson was correct, and those who came after that generation, the reason they fought so hard at the trials and subsequently was that they believed that had there been a forum, a place for the rule of law where natural law could reside, we might very well have avoided the Holocaust and other such events that gripped the midpart of the 20th century. I believe my father would have endorsed President Clinton's decision to sign the Rome statute last December on behalf of the United States. President Clinton did so, knowing full well much of the work remained to be done before the United States would ever become a party to the U.N. convention establishing an international criminal court. The Bush administration is currently reviewing its options with respect to the Rome statute and with respect to the ongoing preparatory work that will make the Court operational only once 60 parties have ratified it. If the Craig amendment is adopted, it will foreclose the Bush administration from opting to stay engaged as a participant in the work of the Preparatory Commission in order to protect U.S. interests and interact with friends and allies on these matters. Let there be no doubt; at some date in the future an international criminal court will come into existence; 36 states have already ratified the treaty, including all members of the European Community. For the United States to be totally on the sidelines as the last details of procedures are hashed out is clearly contrary to our national self-interests. There may also be times when, on a case-by- case basis, the United States may want to assist in the prosecution of foreign war criminals, particularly those cases where the crimes are against American citizens. We just debated, ironically, a proposal dealing with the war crimes of World War II. I think but for the treaty of San Francisco, it would have been adopted 100 to 0. As related in the persuasive arguments of Dan Inouye and others, we believe treaties are important and should not be violated. How ironic that we find ourselves in this particular matter, depriving ourselves of the opportunity to be able to fight hard where war crimes are committed, and, in fact, U.S. citizens may be the victims because we will not allow the option to be involved in the Preparatory Commission of such a court. Elie Wiesel has warned that legislation of this kind would erase America's Nuremberg legacy by ensuring that the United States will never again join the community of nations to hold accountable those who commit war crimes and genocide. A vote to shut the door forever on the International Criminal Court and bar the United States from being engaged, ironically, may be read by some as a signal that the United States accepts immunity from the world's worst atrocities. What a terrible possibility. It is a sad day, as we embark on the 21st century, that the U.S. Senate, the great bastion of debate on international matters of such importance and weight, might vote to deprive us of even being involved in the Preparatory Commission considering an international court of criminal justice where human rights and genocide matters can be debated, where those who commit those crimes can be brought to the bar of justice. I urge my colleagues to think more carefully about this vote. I accept there are problems with the Rome treaty as currently written. I would not support it. If the Rome treaty came to this Chamber as written, I would vote against it. But that is not the case. There is work to be done. We ought to be engaged in that work. That is why I introduced legislation before the August recess to protect U.S. interests until we can successfully work out our differences on this issue. I hope the Foreign Relations Committee will hold hearings on this legislation as soon as possible. This bill, the American Citizens Protection and War Criminal Prosecution Act of 2001--the American Citizens Protection Act, would both protect America's Nuremberg legacy while at the same time safeguarding the rights of American citizens who might be brought before foreign tribunals even if we are not a party to them. This bill calls for active U.S. diplomatic efforts to ensure that the ICC functions properly mandates the assertion of U.S. jurisdiction over American citizens and bars the surrender of U.S. citizens to the ICC once the U.S. has acted. The Bush administration is currently studying this and other approaches to issues related to the ICC. We should permit that review to continue and give the President the flexibility to decide how best to serve U.S. interests in this important area. The world is a global village in this new millennium. The U.S. must strike the right balance between protecting our citizens and our men and women in the armed forces who may be traveling or deployed abroad, and preserving United States leadership and advocacy of universal adherence to principles of international justice and the rule of law. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the Craig amendment and let existing law stand with respect to limitations on funding in support of the ICC at this time. This is no time for us to be walking away from a responsibility which we have shouldered proudly for the past half century. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to be heard on the Craig amendment, unless there is some reason why I cannot. Is that in order?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus to introduce a measure to encourage book publishers to donate excess inventory to schools, libraries, and literacy programs. Currently, because of the TAX CODE's treatment of such donations, and the cost of shipping books to schools and libraries, often it is more economical for publishers to destroy books than to donate them. That is as shocking as it is unacceptable. Both the House and Senate versions of the education bills that currently are in conference authorize nearly $1 billion dollars for grants to State and local educational agencies for pre-reading or reading programs for children from pre-kindergarten through 3rd grade. I think it goes without saying that programs to teach kids to read won't work unless they can provide kids with access to books. You can't learn to read if you don't have anything to read. That is why measures such as this, and the provision in the Senate's education bill to help school libraries acquire up-to-date books and to remain open for longer hours, are essential to the success of the reading programs in both bills. This provision will increase children's access to books, introduce them to whole new worlds of knowledge, and enable them to read more at school, in libraries, and at home. This is important, because in a recent study of 15 countries, the United States was 12th in the percentage of 13- year-olds who read for fun. Of course, reading for fun is valuable for its own sake, but it also is an important indicator of academic achievement. For example, students who read on their own do better on both math and reading tests. So, I believe that this provision is exactly the sort of good bipartisan tax and public policy that we ought to be promoting in the Senate, and I ask my colleagues to join Senators Hatch, Baucus, and myself in supporting this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus to introduce a measure to encourage book publishers to donate excess inventory to schools, libraries, and literacy programs. Currently, because of the TAX CODE's treatment of such donations, and the cost of shipping books to schools and libraries, often it is more economical for publishers to destroy books than to donate them. That is as shocking as it is unacceptable. Both the House and Senate versions of the education bills that currently are in conference authorize nearly $1 billion dollars for grants to State and local educational agencies for pre-reading or reading programs for children from pre-kindergarten through 3rd grade. I think it goes without saying that programs to teach kids to read won't work unless they can provide kids with access to books. You can't learn to read if you don't have anything to read. That is why measures such as this, and the provision in the Senate's education bill to help school libraries acquire up-to-date books and to remain open for longer hours, are essential to the success of the reading programs in both bills. This provision will increase children's access to books, introduce them to whole new worlds of knowledge, and enable them to read more at school, in libraries, and at home. This is important, because in a recent study of 15 countries, the United States was 12th in the percentage of 13- year-olds who read for fun. Of course, reading for fun is valuable for its own sake, but it also is an important indicator of academic achievement. For example, students who read on their own do better on both math and reading tests. So, I believe that this provision is exactly the sort of good bipartisan tax and public policy that we ought to be promoting in the Senate, and I ask my colleagues to join Senators Hatch, Baucus, and myself in supporting this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to talk about election reform. I have talked about it on a number of occasions. Yesterday, as chairman of the Rules Committee, we had a markup of one of the election reform bills. I say with a high degree of sadness--and I truly mean this--that our good friends on the Republican side of the aisle decided for whatever reasons not to show up; to sort of boycott the markup. I haven't had that experience in my 20 years in the Senate and 6 years in the House. I gather that it may have happened on other committees but never on ones on which I served. Again, I understand there is disappointment sometimes when our amendments or our bills are not going to be marked up, or are not going to have the necessary votes to be marked up. I had scheduled the markup well in advance with full notice. There are some 16 election reform bills that I know of which have been introduced in the Senate. We didn't mark up all of them. We marked up one bill. It was open for amendment, or substitution, as is the normal process. As I have been both in the majority and minority, over the years that is how it has been done. In the Rules Committee you cannot vote by proxy. You have to be there for the final vote. You can only vote by proxy on amendments. We had the convening of the markup at 9:00 in the morning with the full idea that at least an hour-and-a-half would be available for people to come and offer amendments, debate, or discuss the issue of election reform. I think there were some 200 to 300 people in the hearing room. Many came in wheelchairs and some with seeing-eye dogs and other such equipment in order to assist them. There were people from various ethnic and racial groups in the country who care about election reform, and average Americans who just wanted to see what Congress might do and what the Senate might do in response to the tremendously disappointing events of last fall when we saw what tremendous shambles our election process is in. The events of last fall peeled back the scandalous conditions of our electoral processes all across the country--not only in one state during one election. Almost without exception, every State is in desperate need of repairing the election process. As a result of what happened last fall, there has been a heightened degree of interest in doing something about our election process. As a result, as the chairman of the Rules Committee since June, I have had three hearings on the issue. We had one hearing prior to that when I was ranking member of the committee. The bill I propose is one that has been cosponsored by 50 other Members of this body. It received some rhetorical support from others who are not exactly cosponsors but have told me that they will support the bill when it comes to the floor. The same bill has been introduced by Congressman John Conyers of Michigan in the House of Representatives. It enjoys, I think, over 100 bipartisan cosponsors in that body. There are also other bills that enjoy some support. The bill offered by the now ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senator McConnell, has some 70 cosponsors. Thirty-one of those cosponsors are cosponsors of the bill I introduced. There is a lot of interest in this subject matter. What was disappointing to me and what saddened me was that on a day in which we were going to hold a markup to figure out how we might improve the electoral system so more people would have the opportunity to vote and have their votes counted, our friends on the other side decided not to come and be heard, let alone vote on this matter. That troubles me, and I hope it is something not to be repeated. It is not a very good civics lesson, particularly for the dozens of people who showed up yesterday. Some made the extra strenuous effort to be there, considering their physical condition. Mr. President, between 4 to 6 million people last November 7 showed up to vote and were told their votes would not count despite the fact they had the right to vote. Many of them stood in lines in the colder northern tier States for hours on end. I heard in our hearings in Atlanta the other day, with Senator Cleland at my side, witnesses from Georgia who literally sat in rooms for hours without chairs--elderly people simply waiting for a chance to vote and to have their votes counted. When you have a markup of a bill that is open for all sorts of bills to be considered as amendments or substitutes before the committee, it is disheartening to me that such a message might be sent that we don't care enough to vote on a bill such as this to encourage Americans to vote. I hope that when we come back in September the offer I made in November of last year as the ranking Democrat on the committee to the then-chairman of the committee to work together on a bipartisan bill will be taken up, and that we can sit down and try to craft something a majority of our colleagues would like to get behind and support; and that the other body would do the same, and put some meaningful resources on the table so that States and localities will have the help to make the changes that are necessary in order for the election system in our country to work. The election system is in a shambles. This is not some question of fixing a minor problem, I regret to report. All you need to do is read the reports that have come out in the last few days--studies from the Civil Rights Commission report, to the reports by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology. Their studies indicate, as I noted a few moments ago, a stunning 4 to 6 million people showed up last fall who attempted to vote or intended to vote and were not able to have their votes counted. It is a scandalous situation by any estimation. For example, in my State alone--one of the most affluent States in the Union, the State of Connecticut, on a per capita income basis--we have not bought a new voting piece of equipment in almost a quarter of a century. In fact, the company that made the machines we use in my State no longer exists. Mr. President, there are some exceptions. I think some States, such as Rhode Island, because of the tremendous efforts of the former secretary of State there--now Congressman Jim Langevin, who is a quadriplegic and has been elected to Congress by the good people of Rhode Island--have become very progressive in regards to the electoral reform. The people in Rhode Island who are blind, for instance, can vote without having someone go into the voting booth with them. It is the only State I know of in the country where you can do that today. But Congressman Langevin was sensitive to it because of his own physical condition. He told me, with very minor investments--about $400 per precinct--they were able to make not only the voting place accessible but the ballot accessible. Last fall, 10 million blind people did not vote in America. I have a sister who is blind, blind from birth. She is legally blind. She totally lacks vision in one eye, and has very slight vision in her other eye. From time to time, she has needed assistance--and I don't want to suggest to you she has not voted on her own from time to time-- but she works with many people as part of the National Federation of the Blind. She is a board member and attends their conventions. You need only talk to people in your respective States, and ask people who are totally blind what it was like to go and vote last fall. They will tell you they had to take someone with them to vote. Some States will allow you to bring a family member. Some insist you go in with a poll worker you don't know. So the idea of casting a ballot in private is nonexistent. Therefore, when I talk about trying to establish some national requirements to improve the system, it isn't just better equipment, it is also making the voting booth more accessible to those who are disabled. At any rate, let me share with you these statistics. As I said, there were 4 to 6 million people--this is stunning--trying to do their civic duty who were turned away and denied the chance to vote. Earlier this week, former Presidents Ford and Carter released a report. Their findings echo those of the Cal-Tech-MIT report. The report makes clear that the election of 2000 was more than ``a closely contested election,'' as some have attempted to characterize it. It was more than a matter of a few disputed ballots in a single State. It was, in the words of the Ford-Carter Commission---- Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from the State of Washington. I would like to be able to proceed for about 5 additional minutes, if that is all right with her.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. The Ford-Carter Commission described the results of last fall's election as ``a political ordeal unlike any in living memory.'' It was an ordeal that spread beyond a few counties in Florida to encompass-- and incriminate--the electoral system within our entire Nation. Like the Cal-Tech-MIT report, this report adds to the growing body of evidence that in the year 2000--and in previous years--American voters were disenfranchised--not by the thousands, or even by the tens of thousands, but by the millions. These are people who intended to vote, stood in line, did everything they thought they needed to do--thought they had registered to vote--and for a variety of reasons were not able to cast their ballots, or not have their ballots counted. They were people who were disproportionately poor, who are racial or ethnic minorities, who speak English as a second--not first--language, and who are physically disabled. In Florida alone, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found that African American voters were 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots thrown out. Across the country, the votes of poor and minority voters were three times more likely to go uncounted than the ballots of wealthier Anglo voters. That kind of disparity--based on race, income, ethnicity, language, and physical ability--is unacceptable, at least it ought to be, in any nation that calls itself a democracy. For a nation such as ours--which is the birth place of modern democracy, which holds itself out among the community of nations as an emblem of self-governance--six million people, out of 100 million who cast their ballots, were thwarted. That is more than unacceptable; it is unconscionable. Likewise, as our colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, has said, it is unacceptable and unconscionable when any American abuses his or her right to vote by committing fraud. I wholeheartedly endorse the comments that he made on the Senate floor yesterday that we need to expand voter participation and reduce voter fraud in our Nation. I appreciate, by the way, the Senator from Missouri telling me the night before what he was going to say on the floor the next day. Those are common courtesies we extend to each other, regardless of differences that may exist. Voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement are different wrongs, but they have a similar impact. They both debase our electoral system. They both distort the value of votes lawfully cast. And they both diminish the true will of the American people. I wholeheartedly embrace his statement that we need reforms that ensure that more Americans can vote and that fewer can cheat. I look forward to working with him during the month of August, and his staff, to see if we can craft those parts of what he has proposed as a part of our bill. Some have argued that--against this overwhelming evidence that millions of Americans are routinely deprived their right to effectively exercise the most fundamental right we have in a democracy; against this overwhelming evidence that our electoral system is in profound need of reform--we should make strengthening our election laws optional. In 1965 we passed the Voting Rights Act. We did not make the elimination of the poll tax or elimination of the literacy tests an option. We said: It is wrong because you are voting for President of the United States and the National Congress. If we were just voting for the local sheriff or the school board or the general assembly of that State, then I do not think the Federal Government has a lot to say. You might argue that we do. But when you are voting for the President and the National Congress, then, if you deprive people the right to vote, either de jure, by law, or de facto because of what you failed to do to make the system accessible to people, then you have affected the people who vote in my State when they vote for President or they vote for the National Congress. So the idea that somehow we are going to make de facto barriers to people's right to vote optional is as ludicrous on its face as it was in 1965 to say we had no right to abandon or get rid of de jure hurdles to people's right to vote when it came to casting ballots for the Presidency and the Congress of the United States. I am not interested in having overly burdensome requirements. I do not think having basic national standards that say, if you are blind, you have the right to vote in private; if you are disabled and cannot reach the machine, you ought to be able to do so. We did that with the Americans With Disabilities Act. You cannot go into a public accommodation or a public restroom that isn't handicap accessible today. You ought not be able to go into a voting booth that isn't handicap accessible. I do not think you are going to get that by leaving it optional. I think there does need to be a national requirement to see to it you do not have these punch-hole ballots or chads hanging around all over the place. I do not care if you want to have a different machine in every State, but meet basic minimum requirements. Provisional voting, giving people the right to see how they voted-- you can go to a gasoline station and you know how much gas you put in your car because you get a receipt to look at. Can't we do the same for a voting machine, so that when you vote, and you come out of the booth, you can take a look and make sure your vote was recorded as you intended it to be recorded in the 21st century? Or can't we have a sample ballot so you might have some idea about what you are going to see in the voting booth when you walk into that booth for the very first time? Those are the kinds of requirements I am talking about. I do not think that is overly aggressive, overly excessive. And I believe that if the National Government requires it, that we ought to also pay for it. My bill does both. I am pleased to say the Presiding Officer and others are cosponsors of the bill we have introduced. I am not suggesting it is perfect. I hope when we come back in September--I have been told by the majority leader; I appreciate his tremendous leadership on this issue--we will make this a priority issue so we can get it done. We can provide some resources and start to make a difference in the 2002 elections. Hopefully, by the 2004 Presidential race, we will at least reduce substantially the amount of abuse we saw occur in the 2000 election, and hereafter we will see to it that voting opportunities are not going to be left to wither and deteriorate to the point they had, as we evidenced, in the year 2000. It is not easy. It is going to take some investment. I will end on this note. It was said by Thomas Paine more than 200 years ago. I know these other issues are important. I don't minimize them, whether we are talking about an energy bill, a farm bill, a Patients' Bill of Rights, all those questions that we debate every day as elected representatives in this body, down the hall in the other body, or down the street in the White House. All of that depends, as Thomas Paine said, on the right to vote. The right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. If we can't get the right to vote right, then what confidence do people have that we will make the kinds of decisions they asked us to make when they sent us here as their representatives? I know it is not as popular and doesn't have the same glamour attached to it as some of these other issues. I don't think there is anything more important this Congress can do than to see to it we redress the wrongs committed in the year 2000 and the years before then. I urge my colleagues, particularly those from the other side. I have gone to many of their offices. I have let them know. I have visited them the last several weeks. I have explained the bill and asked for their ideas. I want a bipartisan bill. I have been to the office of Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the offices of Lincoln Chafee, Peter Fitzgerald, Kit Bond--I have talked to them--on down the list. I will continue to do so because I want a bipartisan bill. I am saddened again that yesterday my Republican friends on the Rules Committee decided not to come and vote and be heard on a bill that was going to try to improve people's right to vote in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to that of the distinguished majority leader in extending my very best to a remarkable woman who served all of us tremendously well during her tenure. Elizabeth, we wish you the very, very best. I know to the outside world, as they look at the floor and they see Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other, we must look slightly chaotic, to put it mildly to the casual observer. But what they do not see day in and day out is the tremendous work of the staff who represent us at one level. They work so deeply and profoundly with all of us on many levels. I cannot tell the Chair on how many occasions Elizabeth Letchworth has been tremendously kind and generous to me when I have come to the floor and asked for guidance or assistance. She never looked at me as if I were a Democrat when she responded to me. She looked at me as a Senator and a person who had a job to do. We will miss you tremendously and only hope that your example will be followed by others who sit in that chair in the years to come, be they Democrats or Republicans on either side. I wish you and your family the very best, and I hope you come back often to see us. I thank you for the tremendous courtesies that you have extended to me and to other Members of this body throughout your service. We thank you immensely.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation intended to help reform and improve the process by which the Federal Government acknowledges the sovereign rights of American Indian tribes and their Governments. I offer these bills with a sense of hope and with the expectation that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native peoples. Senator Inouye and Senator Campbell have provided invaluable leadership on this issue and I hope that the bills I am introducing today will serve as a modest, but useful contribution that will help move us toward a more speedy and more fair recognition process. Currently there are more than 150 Indian groups that have petitions for recognition as sovereign tribes pending before the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. No fewer than nine of those petitions are from groups based in Connecticut. Several recent actions by the BIA have generated considerable debate about the timeliness, accuracy, and fairness of the BIA's actions. I believe that careful reform of the recognition process can help prevent future doubts before they emerge. As we consider how best to reform the process for tribal recognition, we ought to be guided by several firm principles: fairness, openness, respect, and a common interest in bettering the quality of life for all Americans. The two bills that I am introducing today are based on these principles and I believe will bring us closer to our shared objectives. Problems with the current recognition process have been well documented. It is widely recognized that the process is taking too long to resolve the claims of many Indian groups. It is also known that towns and other interested parties often believe that their input is ignored. Last year, the then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on the BIA's tribal recognition process. In a remarkable statement, he called for an overhaul of that process. I do not disagree. In fact, I believe that we have an obligation to restore public confidence in the recognition process. I have proposed a three-part legislative initiative to make the process more accurate, more fair, and more timely. Those parts are: one, provide more money to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I have previously called for increases in the budget for the BIA so it can upgrade its recognition process. For several years, I have sought and supported additional funding for the BIA's branch of acknowledgment and research. The legislation that I am introducing today would dramatically increase the BIA's budget for this office. Right now, the BIA has about 150 recognition petitions pending. At the current pace, it takes an average of eight to ten years for a tribe's petition to be decided upon. It seems to me that is an unacceptably long amount of time. Indeed, I can think of no other area of law where Americans must wait as long to have their rights adjudicated and vindicated. Under any scenario for reform, the BIA should have more resources to get the job done efficiently, thoroughly, and most importantly, accurately. The tribal recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, which I am introducing would authorize $10 million to help BIA quickly address its backlog. This funding increase is critical to help remedy deficiencies in the process by which Indian groups are evaluated and recommended for acknowledgment as sovereign legal entities. Two, this legislation will provide assistance grants to local governments and tribes so that they can fully participate in the recognition process and other BIA proceedings. Any government or tribe would have to demonstrate financial need as a condition of receiving these funds. And they would have to demonstrate that a grant would promote the interests of just administration at the BIA. My intention here is to help improve the fact-finding process and ensure that the Bureau's recognition decisions are based on the best available information. Three, I propose that we make the recognition process more transparent. It bears noting that there has never been an unambiguous grant of authority from Congress to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to administer a program for the recognition of Indian Tribes. I believe that it is time for Congress to make such a clear grant of authority. The legislation I am proposing would essentially codify many of the regulations that the BIA has been operating under for years. I believe that it is in the interest of the general public and American's sovereign tribes to ensure that those parts of the BIA regulations that are working well will have the full force of statutory law. Relying on statutory authority, rather than regulations, will afford the public and tribes with a measure of certainty and permanency that has heretofore been lacking. Anchoring the BIA's authority in legislation will also restore Congress to an appropriate position where it can more effectively monitor and oversee execution of its law. Let me stress something about these proposed reforms: We should seek not to dictate an outcome, but to ensure a process that is fair, open, and respectful to all. That is the best guarantee of an outcome that is just whatever it may be. In concluding, I appreciate that the steps I announced today may appear modest to some, excessive to others. I know they will not please everyone. But they do, I believe, outline a series of actions that can bring greater fairness, openness, and respect to this area of Federal policy. That is my sincere hope, in any event. I look forward to discussing these and other ideas with Chairman Inouye, Senator Campbell, and their colleagues on the Indians Affairs Committee. I submit these bills to them in humble recognition of their wealth of wisdom and understanding about these matters. I also look forward to discussing them with our other colleagues here in the Senate and with members of the communities that may be impacted by these proposals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation intended to help reform and improve the process by which the Federal Government acknowledges the sovereign rights of American Indian tribes and their Governments. I offer these bills with a sense of hope and with the expectation that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native peoples. Senator Inouye and Senator Campbell have provided invaluable leadership on this issue and I hope that the bills I am introducing today will serve as a modest, but useful contribution that will help move us toward a more speedy and more fair recognition process. Currently there are more than 150 Indian groups that have petitions for recognition as sovereign tribes pending before the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. No fewer than nine of those petitions are from groups based in Connecticut. Several recent actions by the BIA have generated considerable debate about the timeliness, accuracy, and fairness of the BIA's actions. I believe that careful reform of the recognition process can help prevent future doubts before they emerge. As we consider how best to reform the process for tribal recognition, we ought to be guided by several firm principles: fairness, openness, respect, and a common interest in bettering the quality of life for all Americans. The two bills that I am introducing today are based on these principles and I believe will bring us closer to our shared objectives. Problems with the current recognition process have been well documented. It is widely recognized that the process is taking too long to resolve the claims of many Indian groups. It is also known that towns and other interested parties often believe that their input is ignored. Last year, the then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on the BIA's tribal recognition process. In a remarkable statement, he called for an overhaul of that process. I do not disagree. In fact, I believe that we have an obligation to restore public confidence in the recognition process. I have proposed a three-part legislative initiative to make the process more accurate, more fair, and more timely. Those parts are: one, provide more money to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I have previously called for increases in the budget for the BIA so it can upgrade its recognition process. For several years, I have sought and supported additional funding for the BIA's branch of acknowledgment and research. The legislation that I am introducing today would dramatically increase the BIA's budget for this office. Right now, the BIA has about 150 recognition petitions pending. At the current pace, it takes an average of eight to ten years for a tribe's petition to be decided upon. It seems to me that is an unacceptably long amount of time. Indeed, I can think of no other area of law where Americans must wait as long to have their rights adjudicated and vindicated. Under any scenario for reform, the BIA should have more resources to get the job done efficiently, thoroughly, and most importantly, accurately. The tribal recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, which I am introducing would authorize $10 million to help BIA quickly address its backlog. This funding increase is critical to help remedy deficiencies in the process by which Indian groups are evaluated and recommended for acknowledgment as sovereign legal entities. Two, this legislation will provide assistance grants to local governments and tribes so that they can fully participate in the recognition process and other BIA proceedings. Any government or tribe would have to demonstrate financial need as a condition of receiving these funds. And they would have to demonstrate that a grant would promote the interests of just administration at the BIA. My intention here is to help improve the fact-finding process and ensure that the Bureau's recognition decisions are based on the best available information. Three, I propose that we make the recognition process more transparent. It bears noting that there has never been an unambiguous grant of authority from Congress to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to administer a program for the recognition of Indian Tribes. I believe that it is time for Congress to make such a clear grant of authority. The legislation I am proposing would essentially codify many of the regulations that the BIA has been operating under for years. I believe that it is in the interest of the general public and American's sovereign tribes to ensure that those parts of the BIA regulations that are working well will have the full force of statutory law. Relying on statutory authority, rather than regulations, will afford the public and tribes with a measure of certainty and permanency that has heretofore been lacking. Anchoring the BIA's authority in legislation will also restore Congress to an appropriate position where it can more effectively monitor and oversee execution of its law. Let me stress something about these proposed reforms: We should seek not to dictate an outcome, but to ensure a process that is fair, open, and respectful to all. That is the best guarantee of an outcome that is just whatever it may be. In concluding, I appreciate that the steps I announced today may appear modest to some, excessive to others. I know they will not please everyone. But they do, I believe, outline a series of actions that can bring greater fairness, openness, and respect to this area of Federal policy. That is my sincere hope, in any event. I look forward to discussing these and other ideas with Chairman Inouye, Senator Campbell, and their colleagues on the Indians Affairs Committee. I submit these bills to them in humble recognition of their wealth of wisdom and understanding about these matters. I also look forward to discussing them with our other colleagues here in the Senate and with members of the communities that may be impacted by these proposals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to add my support for the passage of H.R.1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Relief Act. As many of my colleagues have noted, this legislation is the result of bipartisan cooperation in both the Senate and the House. We have worked closely to craft legislation that I believe will have important benefits for both retail and institutional investors, the securities industry and the Securities and Exchange Commission. I would specifically like to recognize the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Banking Committee for their efforts on this bill, especially with regard to ensuring pay parity for employees of the SEC. The inclusion of this vital component will help to maintain the high level of competency we currently enjoy at the SEC . I would also like to thank the Majority Leader and the Assistant Majority Leader for their commitment to the timely consideration of this legislation. It is my hope that when we return from the August work period, we can consider this legislation in a prompt fashion.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Nuremberg Trial of the leading Nazi war criminals following World War II was a landmark in the struggle to deter and punish crimes of war and genocide, setting the stage for the Geneva and Genocide Conventions. It was also largely an American initiative. Justice Robert Jackson's team drove the process of drafting the indictments, gathering the evidence and conducting this extraordinary case. My father, Thomas J. Dodd, served as Executive Trial Counsel at Nuremberg, it was among his proudest accomplishments. But it was also part of a common theme that ran through a lifetime of public service. He believed that America had a special role to help make the rule of law relevant in every corner of the globe. I believe that he would have endorsed President Clinton's decision to sign the Rome Statute last December on behalf of the United States. President Clinton did so knowing full well that much work remains to be done before the United States can become a party to the U.N. convention establishing an International Criminal Court, ICC. The Bush administration is currently reviewing its options with respect to the Rome Statute and with respect to the ongoing preparatory work that is necessary to make the court operational once sixty parties have ratified. The so called American Service- members' Protection Act of 2001 sponsored by Senators Helms and Congressman DeLay in the Senate and House, respectively, if enacted into law, will severely limit the Bush administration's options for interacting with our friends and allies about issues directly related to the ICC, as well as have a major impact on possible United States participation in the ICC at some date in the future. Among other things, their legislation would prevent the U.S. from helping to prosecute war criminals before the ICC even on a case-by-case basis. Elie Wiesel has written that this legislation would erase America's Nuremberg legacy ``by ensuring that the U.S. 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 U.S. acceptance of impunity for the world's worst atrocities.'' That is why I am introducing ``The American Citizens Protection and War Criminal Prosecution Act of 2001.'' The American Citizens Protection Act, today in the Senate to both protect America's Nuremberg legacy while at the same time safeguarding the rights of American citizens brought before foreign tribunals. My friend and House colleague, William Delahunt of Massachusetts is also introducing a companion bill in the House today. Our bill calls for active U.S. diplomatic efforts to ensure that the ICC functions properly, mandates the assertion of U.S. jurisdiction over American citizens and bars the surrender of U.S. citizens to the ICC once the United States has acted. Unlike the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, however, The American Citizens Protection Act allows the United States to help prosecute war criminals and it does not effectively end U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping or authorize going to war to obtain the release of certain persons detained by the ICC. I believe that the bill that has been introduced today in the House and Senate strikes the right balance between protecting our citizens and our men and women in the armed forces who may be traveling or deployed abroad, and preserving United States leadership and advocacy of universal adherence to principles of international justice and the rule of law. I hope that the Bush administration will review carefully provisions of this bill, because I believe taken together they address the administration's concerns about the Rome Statute without doing damage to our national interest or future foreign policy objectives. I look forward to working with Administration officials and with my colleagues on this important issue in the coming weeks.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the possibility that the United States will not send a full delegation to the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance. I believe this is both a worthwhile and important endeavor, and I am greatly troubled by the prospect that the United States may not attend. According to a Washington Post article last week, the Bush Administration's reservations about attending the conference stem from concerns regarding certain proposed items on the agenda. The Administration's concerns are legitimate ones, but it is my belief that the Conference organizers are so anxious to have high level U.S. participation in Durban that contentious issues can be resolved prior to the August event, provided the United States signals its genuine interest in participating. Clearly the overarching objectives of the conference are of great importance to the American people and to peoples throughout the planet. As members of the global community, and as a global leader and vocal advocate for human rights, it would be tragic if the United States could not find a way to support the conference's honorable ambitions. I do not need to list for my colleagues all the many injustices that occur each day, worldwide, that can be attributed to racism and ignorance, racism's frequent collaborator. As we all know, despite the best efforts of the international community, the effects of racial discrimination, ethnic conflict, and xenophobia continue to threaten and victimize people the world over. We have seen the violent devastations of racism in the former Yugoslavia, in Indonesia, and sadly, at home in America as well. The hateful term ``ethnic cleansing'' is now all too often used to describe violent international conflicts, and, increasingly, international humanitarian relief efforts focus on the tides of refugees fleeing persecution based on skin color, religion, and ethnic heritage. The task that lays before all nations therefore, is to peer deeply into the corners of our societies that we find most distasteful and hurtful, and to shine some light honestly onto the devastation that racism has inflicted. In my view, the United Nations World Conference on Racism is the place to begin this difficult, but crucial process of racial introspection. It is not enough for the United States to pay lip service to the ideals of racial equality. We should attend this conference, and lend our full support to this worthy cause. I believe that in the conference we have a unique opportunity to work with other nations, our neighbors and partners, to begin the process of addressing the many crimes caused by racism, and the underlying societal causes of racism itself. This conference has the power to raise awareness about these issues, to form international consensus on best to combat racism, and to educate the international community on the ravages of racially motivated persecution and conflict. It is my hope, that the Bush Administration will conclude that our presence at the United Nations Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance is vital and appropriate, and will work to ensure that problems related to U.S. participation are resolved before the conference convenes next month. I would also hope that the President would designate Secretary of State Colin Powell to lead a racially and geographically diverse delegation from the United States to the conference in South Africa. Toward that end, I am submitting a resolution which urges the active participation of the United States in the conference, and it is my hope that my colleagues will support this resolution.