Q: Teenage boys must register for selective service at age 18, but not girls. I'm wondering whether this sends the right message about national service, & whether we ought to re-examine how we go about asking young people for their service to the country
A: I'm the only candidate here who has articulated a large national service program. I served in the Peace Corps back in the 1960s. I joined because an American president asked me to. He invited a generation of us to be involved in things larger than
ourselves. I don't see a need for the draft. I don't believe that is necessary. But if you are going to have one I think it ought to be gender neutral. But I believe we ought to do what Maryland has done. Maryland has a requirement that every high school
student commit 100 hours of public service in your community. I'd like that to be a part of every community. So I'm a very strong advocate of universal national service--not required, but extending that invitation to people be involved.
Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum
Dec 1, 2007
National security is more important than human rights
Q: What is more important, human rights or national security?
A: Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the
US and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. If there were totally free elections in many of the countries today, the Islamic Jihad or Brotherhood would win 85% of the vote. That's not a great outcome for us at this point either.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada
Nov 15, 2007
Deeply troubling to legalize secret interrogation
Pres. Bush seized unprecedented war powers, deciding that the Administration alone had the authority to determine how to treat prisoners in the war on terror. He rejected domestic law and international treaties on methods of interrogation.
The president has maintained that the US is in a state of war against terrorism, and therefore has the authority to hold enemy combatants indefinitely without trial, formal charges, or revealment of evidence against them.
There was no significant challenge to them until the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld reached the Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that the president needed the approval of Congress to pursue measures other than those expressly
dictated by existing US laws and treaties. The president's quick response was to propose legislation that would have Congress rubber-stamp his initial practices. He demanded a free hand in interrogation--a circumstance that was deeply troubling.
Source: Letters from Nuremberg, by Chris Dodd, p. 16-17
Sep 11, 2007
Maintain Geneva Conventions; keep restrictions on torture
Q: Would you allow a presidential exception to allow torture if we captured a high-ranking Al Qaeda operative who knew about an impending attack?
A: I would disagree with that. This was all part of the Military Commissions
Act which was adopted last fall. There were only a handful of us that voted against it at the time. And I've written legislation to overturn it. I'll offer no better witness here than
John McCain, who said that during those terrible years he was incarcerated and tortured, he would say anything to those interrogators in order to stop the physical pain. So we need to reinforce the idea here; this is a dreadful way to collect information
We need to do other things to make sure it happens. But walking away from international conventions, as we did with the Geneva Conventions to disallow the restrictions on torture, I think, is a mistake, and also to walk away from habeas corpus.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College
Sep 6, 2007
Should have filibustered vote to abandon habeas corpus
Q: Where in your past didn't you tell the whole truth?
Q: Maybe one of the worst votes cast in the Congress, maybe in the last 20 years, was last fall, on the Military Commissions Act, in which we allowed the abandonment of habeas corpus, returning
to torture, and abandoning the Geneva Convention. I thought about filibustering that bill, and I didn't do it. I regret that deeply. I can't think of a worse vote we cast, to walk away from the Constitution.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week"
Aug 19, 2007
Supports repealing Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell
Q: Would you support a congressional repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
A: Support.
Q: Do you support modifying the Social Security System to pay survivor benefits to the same sex partners of gay and lesbian people?
A: Support.
Q:
Do you support fair and equal tax treatment of same sex couples on the same basis as married couples?
A: Support.
Q: Do you support domestic partner coverage for gay and lesbian employees of the civilian federal workforce?
A: Support.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate--written questionnaire
Aug 9, 2007
Star Wars program is wrong priority for 21st century
Spending $12 billion every month in Iraq has got to stop if we're going to have a different set of priorities in our country. We need to look at our defense systems and decide which defense systems we need in order to face the threats that we face in the
21st century. Looking at some of these programs out there, such as the Star Wars program--the missile defense system--I think, frankly, we need a different set of priorities.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum
Aug 8, 2007
We're not safer than after 9/11; we're still vulnerable
We're not safer today [than after 9/11] even though we have not had an attack on our own soil. Tell that to the people in Iraq, tell that to the people in Afghanistan, tell that to the people around the world.
Terrorism's a real issue. It's going to require a collective effort on behalf our nation working with others to make a difference. Terrorism is a tactic, it's not a philosophy, and it's going to require an inordinate amount of cooperation to solve that.
Having the kind of first responders at home like the firefighters and police and EMS services that have the tools and the ability to stand up and defend our country has not been funded.
While we haven't been attacked, I think we're vulnerable today more so than we were right after 9/11.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum
Aug 8, 2007
Opposed to draft, but advocates universal nation service
Q: Should women register for selective service when they turn 18 like men do currently?
A: Well, yes, I think they should, in a sense. I'm opposed to a draft, but I think if you're going to have registration, it ought to be across lines so you don't
just ask one gender to have the responsibility. So in my view that would be the fair thing to do. I'm an advocate of universal nation service, not by mandating it, but one of the things I'm missing in our country is the shared experience.
Served in National Guard; several family members in Navy
Q: How many family members do you have serving in uniform?
A: I served with the National Guard and Reserves. My brother served in the military as well. So, in my family, there have been at least two that I'm aware of.
I have first cousins of mine that were submarine commanders. My uncle was a commander in World War II in the Navy. So there have been a number of people in my family.
Reassess military priorities and systems from the Cold War
We're not listening to our senior military people who tried to engage in the transformation of our military needs, recognizing that there are different threats we face today than we did during the Cold War. There needs to be a reassessment of what those
priorities and systems are so that we're strong enough. No one's going to be elected president or ought to be president that's not going to have as their primary priority keeping us safe and secure. That is the principal responsibility of an US president
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Jun 3, 2007
Stateless terrorism requires a multinational response
Q: How has this label been attached to the Democratic Party, that the Republicans will protect America best?
A: It's a myth in the sense when you consider what this administration has done over six years, given the attacks we faced on 9/11.
Our first responders are not getting the support they deserve, the administration has been resistant in supporting them; the war in Iraq, rather than dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan where our efforts should have been over the last number of years
Stateless terrorism is a multinational problem. It requires a multinational response. This administration has walked away from that. The very institutions we need to build to have us effectively engage and fight back against terrorism, this
administration seems to take the other track and move in another direction. We need to have leadership that knows how to build relationships to encourage that kind of participation. This administration's done just the opposite.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
Apr 26, 2007
Give troops & first responders everything they need
Whether it's Iraq or Katrina, our servicemen and women deserve a president who can say, "I did everything--everything--in my power to ensure that those that are in harm's way had the equipment they needed to be safe." A president who gives them
the plan to carry out their job. A president who makes sure that those injured get the very best medical treatment when they're injured. That shouldn't be too much to ask of any administration. And I promise you, in my administration, it won't be.
Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC
Mar 14, 2007
We've known Walter Reed was disgraceful for over a year
Q: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says, "I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed. Some have shown too much defensiveness and have not shown
enough focus on digging into and addressing the problems." What do you think?
A: Well, certainly, Gates is new on the job, , but this is not new. That's the unfortunate part. The news stories are a couple of weeks old, but these reports were coming out
over a year ago. In fact, some of us offered some proposals a year ago to increase funding to deal exactly with these issues how our veterans were being treated at Walter Reed and other facilities. So the word "disgraceful" hardly describes or seems
adequate in describing this. So I applaud the secretary of defense's sense of outrage here. And moving personnel around is fine. That's symbolic. But we've got to do more than that. These people deserve a lot better.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer
Mar 4, 2007
Transfer funds from $2B weekly in Iraq, to helping veterans
Q: Sen. Lieberman suggested he would be open to raising taxes to get more money for veterans, for troops coming home, if necessary, to make sure they get world-class treatment. Are you open to raising taxes to help the veterans?
A: You don't have to
necessarily raise the taxes, just some different priorities. We're spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. Frankly, by redeploying those forces soon, not doing what we're doing today here, a lot of those resources could be used to deal exactly with these
veterans. You don't have to raise taxes to do that. You have to re-order our priorities.
Q: The Congress, led by the Democrats, took $3 billion out of the budget that was designated for the facilities for returning troops from Iraq and spent that money
on domestic projects.
A: That's because the Republicans who controlled the last Congress didn't get a budget done, including the amendment that I offered for $20 billion, to deal exactly with this issue, which were rejected by the Republican majority.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer
Mar 4, 2007
Chris Dodd on Voting Record
Voted for 20 pay increases for the military
The idea that I would vote against pay increases for the soldiers is just unfounded. I have voted for 20 pay increases for the military, several in recent years.
Source: CT Senate Debate, in Stamford Advocate
Oct 11, 2004
Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US.
A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences?
Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better.
Reference: Protect America Act;
Bill S.1927
; vote number 2007-309
on Aug 3, 2007
Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months.
Vote on an amendment, SA2032, which amends HR1585, the Defense Authorization bill: To limit the deployment of a unit or individual of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom to no more than 12 consecutive months; and to limit Marine Corps deployment to no more than 7 consecutive months; except in time of national emergency.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June.
This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with $1 billion in large cash bonus incentives.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. KYL: Time in theater and dwell times should be a goal, rather than an absolute fixed requirement that becomes the policy of the US military determined by congressional action. By mandating a certain policy for deployment time or dwell time, the Congress is engaged in the most explicit micromanaging of what is obviously a function for the Commander in Chief and military commanders to perform. This is not something Members of Congress are knowledgeable about or would have the ability to dictate in any responsible fashion. It also would be unconstitutional. Clearly, the dwell times of troops or the amount of time in theater is an obligation of the Commander in Chief, not something for the Congress to determine.
Reference: Hagel Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill;
Bill SA2032 to HR1585
; vote number 2007-243
on Jul 11, 2007
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report.
Vote on passage of a bill to implement unfinished recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) to fight the war on terror more effectively:
I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
II: Homeland Security Grants
III: Communications Operability and Interoperability
IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program
V: Enhancing Security of International Travel
VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters
VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
VIII: Private Sector Preparedness
IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing
X: Incident Command System
XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection
XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence
XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies
XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication
XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention
XVII: 911 Modernization
XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
One of the authors of the 9/11 Commission report said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission.
Reference: Improving America's Security Act;
Bill S. 4
; vote number 2007-073
on Mar 13, 2007
Voted YES on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
Sen. Specter's amendment would strike the provision regarding habeas review. The underlying bill authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. Excerpts from the Senate floor debate:
Sen. GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should do.
Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of
habeas corpus is maintained.
GRAHAM: Do we really want enemy prisoners to bring every lawsuit known to man against the people fighting the war and protecting us? No enemy prisoner should have access to Federal courts--a noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorist--to bring a lawsuit against those fighting on our behalf. No judge should have the ability to make a decision that has been historically reserved to the military. That does not make us safer.
SPECTER: The US Constitution states that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We do not have either rebellion or invasion, so it is a little hard for me to see, as a basic principle of constitutional law, how the Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court does say in the next round of legal appeals there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus by those detained at Guantanamo Bay, then Sen. Specter is absolutely right.
Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.
Amendment to provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs. The underlying bill S. 3930 authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. The amendment requires quarterly reports describing all CIA detention facilities; the name of each detainee; their suspected activities; & each interrogation technique authorized for use and guidelines on the use of each such technique.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press.
This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used.
If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.
We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:
A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of
Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.
Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism.
Vote to adopt an amendment that makes US businesses and their subsidiaries liable to prosecution for dealing with foreign businesses which have links to terrorism or whose parent country supports terrorism. Voting YES would:
Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism.
Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism.
Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses.
Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business.
Reference: Stop Business with Terrorists Act of 2005;
Bill S AMDT 1351 to S 1042
; vote number 2005-203
on Jul 26, 2005
Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders.
Amendment intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would ban nuclear weapons testing six months after ratification by the 44 nations that have nuclear power plants or nucelar research reactors.
Status: Resolution of Ratification Rejected Y)48; N)51; P)1
Reference: Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
Bill Treaty Document #105-28
; vote number 1999-325
on Oct 13, 1999
Voted NO on allowing another round of military base closures.
Vote on an amendment to allow one round of military base closures beginning in 2001 as determined by an independent panel.
Reference:
Bill S.1059
; vote number 1999-147
on May 26, 1999
Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels.
The Kerrey (D-NE) amdt would strike bill language requiring that U.S. strategic nuclear forces remain at START I levels through the end of fiscal 2000 unless Russia ratified START II.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)56; N)44
Reference: Motion to table Kerrey Amdt #395;
Bill S. 1059
; vote number 1999-149
on May 26, 1999
Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP.
Vote that the policy of the US is to deploy a National Missile Defense system capable of defending against limited ballistic missile attack as soon as it is technologically possible, and to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces.
Reference:
Bill S 257
; vote number 1999-51
on Mar 17, 1999
Voted NO on military pay raise of 4.8%.
Vote to pass a bill to authorize a military pay raise of 4.8% in 2000 and annual pay increases through 2006 of 0.5% above the inflation rate. The bill would also provide additional incentives to certain enlisted personnel who remain on active duty.
Reference:
Bill S.4
; vote number 1999-26
on Feb 24, 1999
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training.
Byrd Amdt (D-WV) that would prohibit same-sex military barracks and basic training.
Status: Amdt Rejected Y)39; N)53; NV)8
Reference: Byrd Amdt #3011;
Bill S. 2057
; vote number 1998-180
on Jun 25, 1998
Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects.
Overturning line-item vetoes of 36 military projects vetoed by President Clinton.
Status: Bill Passed Y)69; N)30; NV)1
Reference: Line Item Veto Cancellation bill;
Bill S. 1292
; vote number 1997-287
on Oct 30, 1997
Voted YES on banning chemical weapons.
Approval of the chemical weapons ban.
Status: Resolution of Ratification Agreed to Y)74; N)26
Reference: Resolution of ratification of the Chemical (Comprehensive) Weapons (Convention) Ban;
Bill S. Res. 75
; vote number 1997-51
on Apr 24, 1997
Voted NO on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty.
Vote to consider establishing a policy requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by the end of 2003. The bill would also urge discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow deployment of the system.
Reference:
Bill S 1635
; vote number 1996-157
on Jun 4, 1996
Voted NO on 1996 Defense Appropriations.
Approval of the 1996 Defense Appropriations bill.
Status: Bill Passed Y)62; N)35; NV)3
Reference: Defense Approps Bill FY 96;
Bill S. 1087
; vote number 1995-397
on Sep 5, 1995
Small business in developing homeland security technologies.
Dodd sponsored a resolution on small businesses
Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) small business participation is vital to U.S. defense and should play an active role in assisting the military, Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and State and local police to combat terrorism through the design and development of innovative products; and (2) Federal, State, and local governments should aggressively seek out and purchase innovative technologies and services from, and promote research opportunities for, American small businesses to help in homeland defense and the fight against terrorism. Passed/agreed to in Senate.
Source: Resolution sponsored by 26 Senators 02-SR264 on May 8, 2002
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.
Dodd scores 100% by SANE on peace issues
Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation's largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...
That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.
As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. For what the US will spend on Missile Defense in one year we could: put over a million children through Head Start OR provide healthcare for over 3.5 million children OR create over 100,000 units of affordable housing OR hire over 160,000 elementary school teachers. At Peace Action our priorities are clear.
The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
