Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I ask my friend and colleague if he will withhold that request for a few minutes. I will share with him a message I am getting. I will let him know about it.

Mr. DODD. At this juncture, at this particular moment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, today some 1,500 American World War II-era veterans, members of the so-called Greatest Generation, will pass away. Tomorrow about the same number will pass away. That daily number will gradually rise in the weeks, months, and years to come. Most of them were not career soldiers, but they answered the call to serve our country. Many bravely confronted our enemies in distant lands, in battles that we regard as history, but that they remember as their personal stories. Midway Island, Omaha Beach, and Iwo Jima are just a few of the places hallowed by their deeds. Through their strength and dedication these veterans have earned the respect and gratitude of all Americans to follow. As these veterans pass away, their families are rightfully seeking to preserve the record of their loved ones' service to our nation. One way in which they are seeking to record that service is to secure official burial recognition. But, because of a provision of current law, the Department of Veterans Affairs is prohibited from providing an official headstone or grave marker to as many as 20,000 of these families each year. The law I am referring to dates back to the Civil War era, when our nation wanted to ensure that our fallen soldiers were not buried in unmarked graves. Thus, the law instructs the VA to provide a grave marker for veterans who would otherwise lie in unmarked graves. Of course, in this day and age, a grave rarely goes unmarked. Today, virtually every deceased veteran is buried in a marked grave, or in some other way duly memorialized by surviving family members. Until 1990, the surviving family members of a deceased veterans could receive from the VA, after a burial or cremation, a partial reimbursement for the cost of a private headstone, a VA headstone, or a VA marker. The choice was solely up to the vet's surviving family members. However, budgetary belt tightening measures enacted in 1990 eliminated the reimbursement component and precluded the VA from providing a headstone or a marker where the family had already done so privately. That measure has left the VA without any recourse when dealing with veterans families who have made private burial arrangements, other than denying their request for official headstones or grave markers. The inequity created by the current law is not difficult to understand. A family who is aware of this peculiarity in the law can simply request the official headstone, or in most cases grave marker, prior to making private arrangements for a headstone or marker. The VA will examine the request, find that the veterans grave has not been marked, and provide the marker, bestowing the appropriate recognition for service to the Nation. The family is then able to incorporate the VA marker into its private arrangements as the family deems fit. However, many, if not most, families do not know about the peculiarities of the law in this area. Most families are unaware of the current law and act as any family would in a time of loss and grief: they make private and appropriate arrangements to commemorate the deceased. For most, the idea of checking with the VA at this most difficult time is the farthest thing from their minds, but the effect of not doing so is absolute and final. When families purchase a private headstone, as nearly every family does these days, they unknowingly forfeit the opportunity to receive a government headstone or marker. The Guzzo family of West Hartford, CT is one of the countless families who have found out about this law the hard way. Thomas Guzzo first brought this matter to my attention several years ago. His late father, Agostino Guzzo, served in the Phillippines and was honorably discharged from the Army in 1947. Today, Agostino Guzzo is interred in a mausoleum at the Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, CT, but the mausoleum bears no reference to his service because of the current law. Like so many families, the Guzzo family provided its own marker and subsequently found that it was not eligible for an official VA marker. When I was first contacted by the Guzzo family, I attempted to straighten out what I thought to be a bureaucratic mixup. I was surprised to realize that Thomas Guzzo's difficulties resulted not from some glitch in the system, but rather from the law itself. In the end, I wrote to the former Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding Thomas Guzzo's very reasonable request. The Secretary responded that his hands were tied as a result of the obscure law. Furthermore, the Secretary's response indicated that, even if a grave marker could be provided for Agostino Guzzo, that marker could not be placed on a cemetery bench or tree dedicated in his name. The law prevented the Department from providing a marker for placement anywhere but the grave site and thus prevents families from recognizing their veteran's service as they wish. I rise today to introduce a bill that will appropriately address these issues and ensure our deceased veterans are treated equitably. The bill will allow the families of deceased veterans to receive an official headstone or grave marker in recognition of their veteran's contribution to our nation, regardless of whether their grave is privately marked. What I propose today is a modest means of solving a massive problem. The VA has described this issue as one of its greatest public affairs challenges, but the cost of fixing it is relatively small. Last Congress, the idea was scored by the Congressional Budget Office at less than $3 million dollars per year, over the first 5 years. This bill will put at ease countless families who are disillusioned by the current system. Moreover, it gives those families the appropriate flexibility, with respect to common cemetery restrictions, to commemorate deceased veterans by dedicating a tree or bench or other suitable site in the veteran's honor. America is different today than it was when we changed the burial benefits in 1990. Our fiscal house is in order; disciplined spending has produced budget surpluses for the first time in many years. We know that the VA is forced to reject as many as 20,000 headstone and grave marker requests each year under the current law. These are meritorious requests by deserving applicants whose families unknowingly forfeit their right to this modest memorial in a time of stress and loss. The cost of fixing this inequity is minor. It is appropriate, I feel, to make sure that all our veterans receive the recognition they have earned. The policy is simple. We should provide these markers or headstones to the families when they request them, and we should allow these families to recognize their deceased veterans in a manner deemed fitting by each family. Time is of the essence. One thousand five hundred veterans pass away each day, and each day there are 1,500 new families who may be denied a modest recognition of the service their loved one gave to our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield to my colleague from Tennessee 1 minute.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains for the opponents?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. DODD. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware be added as a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me also commend our colleague. This has been a good debate, one we can be proud of in this body. I ask for recognition of the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DODD. I yield an additional minute.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to, Mr. President. First of all, the past week and a half has been a rather remarkable week and a half in the Senate. We have had very few quorum calls. I do not know the total number of amendments we have considered, but they have been extensive, back and forth. I find it somewhat amusing that someone else's amendment is a cat or a dog, but if it is your amendment, it is a profoundly significant proposal. We dealt yesterday with the opposition's efforts to raise the hard number limits, and now a severability amendment from the opposition. Those are fundamentally important amendments but amendments that may try to enhance and strengthen the bill from those who support the legislation are a cat or a dog. Our list has not expanded, I say to the majority leader. The list of amendments is about the same as it has been. There are about 12 or 13 amendments. There is a list of 21, which has been the consistent number for the past week. We just dealt with one of them--Senator Harkin's-- this morning. It was laid down last night. Senator Bingaman, Senator Durbin, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Levin come to mind immediately. I think Senator Clinton as well. These do not require much time. We are prepared to move forward, I say to the majority leader, and if it takes going into tonight, going into tomorrow to finish it up, Saturday, or Sunday, whatever it takes, because I know we want to finish the bill, we fully respect that. I support that. I have an obligation--if I can complete this thought. There are those on this side who support McCain-Feingold, and have for years, who have ideas they think will enhance and strengthen this legislation. While this is an important amendment we are about to consider, there are other amendments that should be heard. I hope my colleagues will respect the rights of Members to offer amendments and be heard on them. There certainly is no effort over here to delay this at all. We will stay here however long, I am told by the leadership. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader cannot be here at this moment, but I am told he takes the position that if it takes being here all weekend, we will be here all weekend to complete it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Tennessee. He made a very good point at the outset on the severability issue and precedence. We went back the other day and looked at legislation over the last 10 or 15 years. We are told that of the hundreds, thousands of bills that passed the Congress, there are about 10 or 11 examples where limited severability was involved, the point the Senator was making. With that, let me turn to my colleagues who seek recognition. Senator Wellstone has been around all afternoon. I yield Senator Schumer 7 minutes.

Mr. DODD. That is right. We are down to a very limited amount of time. I have two or three people who want to be heard. I am going to ask the indulgence of my colleagues, unless the other side would like to give us a little time for people who want to be heard. How much time do the proponents have?

Mr. DODD. May we have 5?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to table the Frist-Breaux amendment No. 156, as modified, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. The Senator yields 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I saw my colleague from Minnesota, but I guess he is not now on the floor. We have a couple minutes. My colleague from Kentucky and I talked about this the other day. He makes a very good point about the declining participation in the checkoff system. In fact, the dollar amounts have been raised. If my friend from Kentucky is correct, originally it was $1 for the checkoff. You are not paying more in taxes. It is the money you send in. The checkoff of $1 of your tax returns would be used for the public financing of Presidential races. That number then went up to $3 because there were fewer and fewer people who were actually doing the voluntary checkoff. His numbers, I believe, are correct. We have seen a decline in the number of people who are voluntarily checking off that $3 of their Federal taxes they are sending in or that are being withheld to be used for these Presidential races. I am worried about that because I think there is an underlying cause for this. The debate we are having about campaign finance reform, while we are not going to adopt public financing for congressional races despite the fact there is a lot of merit going that route in terms of dealing with the constitutional problems that exist in the absence of having some public financing, there is an underlying reason that I think contributes to that declining statistic, and that is the people are disgusted with the whole process. I do not think it is people's lack of patriotism or their lack of understanding how important it is to contribute to strengthening our democracy. People are getting fed up. Witness that last year despite the overwhelming amount of attention and advertising on a national Presidential race, a race that included Ralph Nader and the Green Party, there was Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party, the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, and his running mate from my home State, Joe Lieberman; President Bush and Richard Cheney. Out of 200 million eligible voters in this country, only 100 million participated. One out of every two eligible voters in this country decided they were not going to make a choice for President of the United States and Vice President, not to mention the congressional races, the Senate races, and gubernatorial races that occurred. On the Federal election for the leader of the oldest continuous democracy in the world, one out of every two adults in this country said they were not going to participate. I know some may have had legitimate excuses, but I suspect a significant majority of those who did not participate knew it was election day, did not have some overriding family matter that caused them to miss voting. I think they made a conscious decision not to vote. I think they decided they were not going to show up, and I cannot express in our native language adequately the deep, deep concern I have over that fact and what appears to be a growing number of people. I hear it particularly among younger people. I visit a lot of high schools in my home State of Connecticut. I get a sense that too many of our younger people are embracing the notions held by one out of every two adult Americans in the last election, that they are not going to participate by showing up to choose the leader of our country. I suspect that a good part of the reason is that people are just disgusted by what they see and how elections are run when they see this mindless advertising, these 30-second spots, the attack ads that go after each other as if this was somehow an athletic contest rather than a debate of ideas where we are talking about the future of our country and what the priorities of a nation ought to be. I, too, am very concerned with the declining statistics that my friend from Kentucky has identified, but I think it is more a poll not about public financing, I think it is a poll we ought to pay attention to, what the American people are saying, at least in the majority of cases, I believe: We think the system is not working very well. We think the system is out of control. We think there is too much money in politics; that our voices do not get heard; that we cannot afford to participate in these contests where contributions of $1,000, now $2,000 per individual, that people can write a check now for $37,500 if this McCain-Feingold bill is adopted. Last year--I said this over and over in the past week and a half-- there were only 1,200 people in this country who wrote the maximum check of $25,000; 1,200 people out of 280 million Americans. We now have raised that because this hasn't been enough. We are told you can't finance these campaigns with maximum contributions of $25,000 in Federal elections. We are raising it to $37,500. That is per individual, per year. Double that for a primary election. That gets you to $75,000. Of course, if it is a husband and wife, it is $150,000. We had to debate that. I commend my colleague from California who negotiated that number down. Those who wanted that number higher wanted $100,000 per individual, $200,000 for a husband and wife. We are told the system is financially bankrupt. We don't have enough money in politics, we are told. That has more to do with these declining numbers of people voluntarily checking off for some of their tax dollars to be used to publicly finance the Presidential races in America. I am hopeful the adoption of the McCain-Feingold bill, if it is adopted, will at least turn people's opinion in a direction that says at least we are beginning to do something about these elections. For those reasons, I commend, again, the principal authors of this bill and those who are supporting it. But I don't think it is enough. People are still turned off, to put it mildly, on how the races are run and on how politics is conducted. There will always be some; I am not suggesting we will get 100-percent participation. I oppose any laws that require people to vote as some countries do. We better do a lot better job in convincing more than just one out of two adult Americans they ought to participate in choosing the leaders of our Nation than we presently are. If those numbers continue to decline and we trail the rest of the world as we lecture them about democracy and the importance of participating, I will say again, you put this country in peril and these institutions that have survived for more than 200 years, and the public support for them will decline. That, more than anything else, is what ought to preoccupy the attention of each and every one of us, regardless of our views on the particular aspects of amendments. Every single one of us privileged to serve in this Chamber, who have a voice and vote on how we might conduct the political debate in this Nation, needs to take notice of what the American public is saying when they go to the polls or don't go to the polls on election day and exercise their right that people have spilled blood for, for over two centuries, not only in our first great revolution but in a civil war that threatened to divide and destroy this country, through two world wars, wars in the 20th century and other such contests in which Americans, in countless numbers, lost their lives to protect and defend. We are not asked to put our lives on the line. We voluntarily seek these positions. If we are fortunate enough to be chosen by our constituents to be here, we bear a very high degree of responsibility during the brief amount of time the Good Lord gives us to represent the constituencies that have chosen us to do what is right, not only for our own time but that future generations will inherit, as we have inherited, from the sacrifices of those who came before us, the privilege of being here to see to it that this wonderful ideal and vision of democracy is perpetuated throughout this country for, hopefully, centuries to come. For those reasons, I hope while this amendment may be rejected, we could find more common ground between Democrats and Republicans on how to restore the public's confidence in the electoral process in this country. That is at the heart of what McCain-Feingold is all about, despite all the debates about various minutiae in the bill or ideas to be added to it. Our solemn responsibility, in addition to dealing with the issues of the day, is to see to it the process by which we choose people to make those decisions enjoys the broad-based support of the American public. It is in jeopardy today. We better take it more seriously than we are. I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that the time be charged against the bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Tennessee, the author, has been very gracious in giving us some time. I am going to return the favor and extend a minute and a half to him.

Mr. DODD. I presume all time has expired.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, can I have a copy of the amendment? We have not seen the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William Lyons, a legislative assistant in my office, be afforded privileges of the floor during the proceedings.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. A noon vote. To let people know, why don't we do a unanimous consent request.