Marijuana.com

Lit_Match

Christopher J. Dodd

Current Office: U.S. Senator
Current District: Senior Seat
First Elected: 11/04/1980
Last Elected: 11/02/2004
Next Election: 2008
Party: Democrat

Committees:
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs [Senate]
Foreign Relations [Senate]
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions [Senate]
Joint Committee on the Library [Joint]
Rules and Administration [Senate], Ranking Member

Background Information
Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Jackie Clegg
1 Child: Grace.
Birth date: 05/27/1944
Birthplace: Willimantic, CT
Home City: East Haddam, CT
Religion: Roman Catholic

Education:
JD, University of Louisville School of Law, 1972
BA, English Literature, Providence College, 1966.

Professional Experience:
US Army Reserve, 1969-1975
Peace Corps Volunteer, Dominican Republic, 1966-1968
Attorney.

Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 1980-present
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1975-1980.

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Co Chair, Congressional Privacy Caucus
Democratic Steering and Coordination Committee
Co Chair, House/Senate International Education Study Group
Technology and Communications Committee.

Contact Information
Key Staff Contacts

Washington DC Address
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-2823
Fax: 202-228-1683

District Address - Wethersfield
Putnam Park
100 Great Meadow Road
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Phone: 860-258-6940
TollFree: 800-334-5341 (CT only)

Christopher J. Dodd's issue positions from Project vote smart

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)

 

Lit_Match

IRAQ -- (Senate - February 06, 2007)

Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me commend my colleague from the State of Washington for her comments and her views. I associate myself with many of the things she expressed in the Senate. I congratulate her for her words, her passion, and her strong feelings about where we stand today on this issue.

Let me also commend the Democratic leader for his efforts to engage in what is probably the single most important debate this Senate could possibly be engaged in. There are other very important matters at home and around the globe--but everyone would agree, regardless of your views on policy, that the issue of Iraq and where we stand and the effort by the President to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq, particularly to place them in the large, highly densely populated urban areas of Iraq, is one of the most serious issues facing our country.

We have had a series of serious and thought-provoking hearings conducted by Chairman Biden of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over the last number of weeks on this issue, with people who represent a variety of ideological perspectives. Yet without fear of contradiction, I believe the overwhelming majority of the witnesses who have appeared before that committee have expressed serious reservations about this escalation, this surge, placing some 21,000 of our young men and women into Baghdad to try and act as a referee in what we all admit today is clearly a civil war.

Having this debate is important. I wish to take, if I can, the few minutes allotted to me to express my concerns about the process, my concerns about the surge, and my concerns about the overall direction of the policy in Iraq. There is not a lot of time to do that, but let me share some thoughts.

First of all, I believe that every Member in this Chamber, regardless of his or her view on the issue before the Senate regarding Iraq, would do everything he or she could to make sure that our brave men and women in uniform, serving in harm's way, would receive everything they could possibly need to defend themselves. That ought not to be a debating point. I know of no one in this Senate who feels otherwise. And the fact that we have to have some discussion about this very point is a reflection, I think, of what has gone wrong in this debate already.

In fact, I point out that over the last 4 years or so, there have been amendments offered by those of us here to provide different additional resources, such as for body armor, because we felt our troops were not getting what they needed. There has been significant discussion here in the wake of testimony offered by our senior military leaders about what has happened to the combat readiness of our troops as a result of our failure to continue to provide the kind of equipment and support they deserved over the years. Certainly what has happened to veterans coming back has also been the subject of debate. But, nonetheless, I believe most Members here, if not all Members here, believe our troops deserve the kind of support they ought to have when they are serving in harm's way.

And so, the debate is not whether you support our troops. The debate is whether the policy direction the President wishes to lead us in is the right one. That is a debate which ought to occur in this Chamber. Frankly, in my view, it ought to be a debate that resolves around at least a legislative vehicle that might have some meaning to it, some bite, some teeth, some reality, some accountability.

My leaders know I have strong reservations about a sense-of-the-Senate debate. Now, normally, we have sense-of-the-Senate resolutions when there is a consensus that develops. Normally, sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are offered around matters that are noncontroversial and we wish to express ourselves regarding these matters, so we all sign on or virtually everyone signs on.

I would say if, in fact, the goal here was to get 70 or 80 Members of this Chamber--Republicans and Democrats--to sign on to a proposition that said we think the surge and escalation is the wrong thing to be doing, then the vehicle of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution would have value. But I would suggest here we are into the second day of this debate and we cannot even decide what sense-of-the-Senate resolution we want to debate.

So if you are sitting out there watching this Chamber at this moment, in terms of where we ought to be going and what the effect of what we are about to do is, it is rather confusing, to put it mildly, as to where we stand in all of this. We cannot even decide what sense-of-the-Senate resolutions to bring up. If we are going to have a debate around here that is meaningful, why not debate something that is meaningful?

So my concerns are, in many ways, that given this moment in time, before these young men and women are placed in harm's way--because I know full well, after a quarter of a century here, once they are on the ground, once they are in place, the debate changes. The debate changes. So if we are truly concerned about dealing with the surge and escalation, then I believe we ought to be engaging in a debate that has some meaningful outcomes when it comes to the decision of whether we go forward.

I, for one, would like to see a new authorization come to this body to be debated. The resolution on which we are operating today is one that was crafted 5 years ago. It was fundamentally linked to weapons of mass destruction and the conduct of Saddam Hussein. The first argument was, of course, a fiction. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And the second argument is no longer viable. Saddam Hussein is gone.

Today, we are being asked to place men and women in uniform in the middle of a civil war. It seems to me that if the President of the United States wants that to be a policy endorsed by the American people through the actions of this body, then we ought to be voting on a matter that says this is something we agree with and go forward. That would have some meaning to it, it seems to me. If we rejected it, then the President would have a strong answer from the Congress about whether we are about to continue to finance and support that activity--again, not undercutting the needs of our troops in harm's way but a legitimate debate about a real issue that requires Members to stand up and vote yes or no.

I realize I am in sort of a minority of one or two here who believes the vehicles we are choosing to debate over the next several days, if, in fact, the debate goes on, are ones that in the final analysis are nothing more than really message proposals. If we are highly divided over which one to bring up, what is the message, in effect, if we cannot even decide which vehicles we want to choose to discuss?

Regarding the surge itself and regarding the Warner-Levin or Levin-Warner proposal, I have some problems with the language of that proposal. It essentially abdicates the power of the purse. It calls for selective diplomacy in the region instead of engaging all of Iraq's neighbors. The language opposing the surge is weak to the point of being nonexistent. And there is language that suggests that nothing in this resolution ought to imply a call for redeployment--something I wholeheartedly believe we should be pursuing in a phased manner.

But those are my concerns about it, both in terms of the process and the language under consideration. I realize other Members do not have those problems. I respect that. But those are my concerns.

Now, regarding the surge itself, again this has been stated by others who have examined this proposal in great detail, including our senior military people and senior diplomats. As I said a moment ago, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they have spoken eloquently about their concerns that this proposal does nothing but contribute to the chaos that reins in Iraq.

There are some 6 million people who live in the city of Baghdad. To suggest we are going to send 17,000 or 18,000 service men and women into a city of 6 million, where there are at least 23 militias along with insurgents, Baathists, hardened criminals, and possibly some al-Qaida elements, and that we are going to sort this out in a way that is going to move us toward a political settlement in the country is I believe, frankly, beyond dreaming. I do not think it

has any viability whatsoever. In fact, I think it contributes to a further escalation of the conflict in the country and delays even further what everyone agrees must occur: some sort of political accommodation between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds--between Shias and Shias, for that matter. The idea that placing our troops as a referee in the middle of this civil conflict is going to get us closer to that result, I think, has been successfully argued against by those whom we respect and admire in these debates.

Secondly, may I say that, in fact, if you are trying to encourage those elements to get together and you are also trying to encourage regional diplomacy to play a role here, then it seems to me we ought to be talking about how best we can achieve that. When you have an administration that refuses to even engage in any kind of conversation or negotiations with governments in the region with which we have serious disagreements, then I think we get even further away from the suggestions made by the Baker-Hamilton study group on Iraq that proposed what I thought were very commonsense, sober, and sound recommendations that would allow us to have a greater likelihood of achieving the success we ought to be pursuing. I see little likelihood of that occurring if, in fact, we are talking about a further military escalation of the conflict here. Every single person who has looked at the situation in Iraq has drawn the following conclusion: There is no military solution--no military solution--in Iraq. So continuing to pursue that option, continuing to pursue that particular goal in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, I believe is a major, major mistake for this country.

I think this body--the Senate--ought to be on record expressing its opinion about it and that we ought to go forward in a meaningful, real, accountable way. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. In fact, we may end this debate without voting on anything at all regarding Iraq, as we need to move on to other items that the leadership clearly must address in the coming weeks. So we are missing an opportunity, other than to express our views, which most people have done. I know of no Member in this Chamber who has not spoken out publicly about whether they think the surge is the right direction to go in, what alternatives they would offer in terms of how we might begin to talk about redeployment, and the need for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own country.

The American people have also publicly spoken out. They voted for a change of course in Iraq last November and according to recent polls, a majority of Americans oppose a surge. Now I do not believe polling data ought to be the way you conduct foreign policy, but the fact is that the American public is exhausted and fed up, to put it mildly, with our Iraq policy. And let's consider the following data out of Iraq: Over 80 percent of the people in that country believe that our continued presence in that country contributes to the chaos they are facing, and over 60 percent of Iraqis believe it is appropriate to attack American service men and women. Over 60 percent of the people in Iraq believe that.

How do you justify supporting an escalation, a surge in our military presence, when the very people whom we are told we are trying to help in this case believe that, one, we contribute to the chaos, and only a slightly smaller number believe it is appropriate to attack our service men and women? For the life of me, I do not understand how an American President could possibly support a policy that takes us further down that road.

Now we are not just talking about only two options here of escalating or leaving. There are policies that come in far between these two. For example, there have been suggestions about redeployment, with our service men and women filling other roles like training the Iraqi military, which was suggested by Baker-Hamilton. I think we should do this. We could engage in counterterrorism activities. Border security; we could play a very meaningful role in that as well. So there are those of us here who believe we ought to be redeploying, bring down those numbers, but none of us whom I know of have suggested we ought to be just packing our bags over the next 6 months and leaving Iraq. We are talking about other roles we can perform, as the 300,000 Iraqi soldiers and police take over the responsibility of their country.

Madam President, I am telling you as I stand before you today, if we continue to provide the kind of level of support militarily we are engaging in, there is less and less likelihood that the Iraqis are going to assume the responsibility, both politically and militarily, to take over leadership of their country.

For those reasons, I urge that we find a means and a vehicle, sooner rather than later, for this body--the Senate, this coequal branch of Government--to say to the administration and to others: We believe in a different direction. We would like a new authorization. We would like debate on a meaningful proposal that would allow us to be accounted for, yes or no, as to whether you want to move forward.

Again, with all due respect to those who crafted this, I have no greater admiration for any two Members than I do for Carl Levin and John Warner, people I have served with here for many years. I respect immensely the effort they have engaged in here to try to build a proposal that would attract a substantial majority of our colleagues to support. If you could do that, then sense-of-the-Senate resolutions have value. But I rest my case on what is occurring at the very moment I stand before you this afternoon. We are divided here. We have some four or five different resolutions. All of them are sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. None of them have any meaning in law at all. And we cannot seem to come around a single debate. We ought to be having one about whether we believe our resources and our young men's and women's lives ought to be placed in harm's way. That is the debate which ought to be occurring here. It is not occurring yet. I think that is unfortunate. It is tragic. My hope is we will find a means to address that in short order.

I yield the floor.

THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Lit_Match

“The budget should reflect a set of priorities that can best advance opportunity, prosperity, and security for all Americans, now and into the future. This budget regrettably comes up far short.

“With the enormous budgetary damage already wreaked by this Administration, the need to restore fiscal discipline is more important than ever. Unfortunately, the President’s budget fails the test of responsibility, both to current and future generations. The President has proposed spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for high income individuals, while raising taxes on middle-income families through the alternative minimum tax and reducing our ability to meet important priorities like education, health care, and restoring the strength of our military that has been weakened by this Administration’s war in Iraq. With the retirement of the baby boomers just around the corner, the President continues to put forth an agenda that makes our predicament worse by sending us deeper into debt.

“This budget shows us more of the fuzzy math we have come to expect from this Administration. Its claims of a declining deficit lack credibility, since it once again fails to specify a full and accurate accounting of the Administration’s proposals over the full budget window. The American people deserve better.

“The Bush administration has laid out its view for what our nation’s priorities should be in the coming fiscal year, but it will ultimately be up to the Congress, through its power of the purse, to decide what those priorities should be and to ensure that the meet the needs and demands of the American people. I look forward to working to close the critical funding gaps contained in the President’s budget. ”

Lit_Match

02/13/2007

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today introduced his bill making important changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which in its current form, does not provide a credible process for bringing suspected terrorists to justice. Sen. Dodd was joined by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), in introducing the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently sent an email to their 40,000 person email list voicing support for Sen. Dodd’s bill and asking their supporters to do the same. The bill is also supported by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, The Center for Victims of Torture, Open Society Institute, and Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International.

The “Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007” restores Habeas Corpus rights, bars evidence gained through torture or coercion and reinstates U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the nation’s military personnel abroad.

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” said Sen. Dodd, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee and an outspoken opponent of the MCA. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”

“The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness,” Sen. Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said. “This bill and legislation I have introduced with Senator Arlen Specter to restore the habeas corpus protections to millions of legal residents are crucial to righting the wrong done by the Military Commissions Act. In standing up for American values and security, we can restore the checks and balances that are fundamental to preserving the liberties that define us as a nation.”

“The Military Commissions Act enacted last year was a stain on our nation’s history,” Sen. Feingold said. “I agree with the President that we should bring terrorists to justice but we should do it in a way consistent with the basic values and principles of our constitutional system of government.”

“Protecting the American people is our most sacred responsibility, therefore we must do all we can to destroy those who would try to destroy our way of life,” Sen. Menendez said. “In doing so, however, we must not compromise the values and virtues of our nation and Constitution. This act will give us the tools to defend America from her enemies, while never ceding our standing as a nation of freedom and justice.

Lit_Match

Chris Dodd on Abortion

* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Chris Dodd on Budget & Economy

* The next generation may be less well-off than us. (Oct 2004)
* Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
* Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
* Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
* Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Chris Dodd on Civil Rights

* Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
* Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
* Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
* Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Chris Dodd on Corporations

* Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
* Rated 32% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Chris Dodd on Crime

* Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
* Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
* Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
* Voted NO on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
* Voted YES on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (May 1994)
* Voted NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)
* Rated 75% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
* Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing. (Mar 2001)
* More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

Chris Dodd on Drugs

* Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
* Voted NO on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

Chris Dodd on Education

* Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
* Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
* Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
* Voted NO on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
* Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
* Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
* Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
* Voted YES on national education standards. (Feb 1994)
* More foreign languages courses and exchange students. (Feb 2001)
* Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Chris Dodd on Energy & Oil

* Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR. (Nov 2005)
* Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
* Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
* Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
* Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
* Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
* Voted YES on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
* Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
* Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
* Voted YES on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
* Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)

Chris Dodd on Environment

* Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
* Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
* Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
* Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
* Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
* Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
* Rated 84% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
* EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)

Chris Dodd on Families & Children

* Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
* Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

Chris Dodd on Foreign Policy

* Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
* Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
* Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
* Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
* Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
* Voted YES on ending Vietnam embargo. (Jan 1994)

Chris Dodd on Free Trade

* Voted NO on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
* Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
* Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
* Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
* Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
* Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)
* Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

Chris Dodd on Government Reform

* Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
* Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
* Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
* Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
* Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
* Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
* Voted NO on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
* Voted YES on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)

Chris Dodd on Gun Control

* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Chris Dodd on Health Care

* Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
* Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
* Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
* Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
* Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
* Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
* Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
* Voted YES on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
* Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
* Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
* Collect data on birth defects and present to the public. (Apr 1998)

Chris Dodd on Homeland Security

* Voted for 20 pay increases for the military. (Oct 2004)
* Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
* Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
* Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
* Voted NO on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
* Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
* Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
* Voted YES on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
* Voted NO on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
* Voted NO on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)
* Small business in developing homeland security technologies. (Jul 2002)
* Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)

Chris Dodd on Immigration

* Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
* Voted NO on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
* Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
* Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

Chris Dodd on Jobs

* Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
* Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
* Voted NO on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
* Voted NO on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)
* Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
* Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

Chris Dodd on Principles & Values

* Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
* Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
* Religious affiliation: Catholic. (Nov 2000)
* Fund the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program. (Dec 1997)

Chris Dodd on Social Security

* Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
* Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
* Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
* Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
* Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Chris Dodd on Tax Reform

* Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
* Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
* Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
* Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
* Rated 15% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Chris Dodd on Technology

* Voted NO on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006)
* Voted YES on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates. (Sep 2003)
* Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
* Let companies share Y2K plans with no risk of lawsuits. (Oct 1998)

Chris Dodd on War & Peace

* Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
* Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
* Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
* Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
* Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
* Voted NO on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)

Chris Dodd on Welfare & Poverty

* Voted NO on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
* Voted YES on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
* Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
* Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
* Establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. (Jul 2003)
* Tax credits to promite home ownership in distressed areas. (Apr 2003)
* Fully fund AmeriCorps. (Jun 2003)

 

Plainsman1963

Another one bites the dust...

__________________


- William G. McAdoo