Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, at the outset I commend my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch, and Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat, and the respective members of the committee for the manner in which they conducted the confirmation hearing for the position of Attorney General of the United States and for the manner in which they treated John Ashcroft, President Bush's nominee for this position. It is a difficult job, particularly when the nomination is controversial. I think the members of the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, conducted themselves with great dignity, and I commend them for it. Mr. President, I am going to vote to confirm John Ashcroft as U.S. Attorney General. I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to explain my reasons. Let me say at the outset that I hope Mr. Ashcroft will listen to what I have to say here this afternoon. My comments are delivered primarily for the benefit of my colleagues and my constituents. But they are also directed to John Ashcroft. It is important that John Ashcroft understand that my support of his nomination is not unqualified. It is given, rather, only upon extensive reflection and despite concerns about what kind of Attorney General he will make. I have listened attentively to the comments of our colleagues both in support of and in opposition to this nomination. I respect immensely their views. I have considered the practices and precedents of the Senate in deferring to presidential cabinet appointments. And I have reflected upon my own practices over the past two decades in the Senate in considering such appointments. During that time, I have supported an overwhelming number of Cabinet nominees. But I have, on the rarest occasions, opposed Cabinet nominees supported by the majority of members of the Senate and by a majority of my own party. It also bears mentioning that I have supported nominees opposed by most members of my party and, in one instance, also opposed by a majority of the Senate. My concerns about this particular nominee can be reduced to three in particular: First, whether he will uphold and vigorously enforce our laws-- especially those with which he personally disagrees. Second, whether he will treat other people in public life as he wishes to be treated--particularly those with whom he may disagree. And third, whether he will seek to unify rather than divide our nation on critical issues facing our nation, especially the issue of racial justice. Let me address these concerns in order. First, as to John Ashcroft's disposition to enforce the law. The Attorney General, as we all know, is our nation's primary law enforcement officer. This is an office of unique importance. Except perhaps for the president himself, no other individual can or should do more to protect the public's safety, and to promote the ideal of equal justice that is the North Star in our constellation of laws. Like many others in public life, John Ashcroft is a man of strong convictions. He should be commended, not faulted, for that fact. But the question that arises with respect to his nomination for this particular office is whether those convictions--on matters such as a woman's right to choose and gun safety--might well preclude him from enforcing laws on those and similar issues with which he may disagree. This is a threshold question. If the nation's top law enforcement officer cannot enforce the law, how can anyone say he should nevertheless assume the office? If the public cannot know with reasonable assurance that their Attorney General will uphold our laws vigorously and free of personal bias, then how can we be confident that respect for the law will not be weakened? If minority Americans, women, and others cannot rely on the Attorney General to safeguard their liberties, how can other--indeed, all-- Americans not worry that their rights might one day be placed at risk, as well? John Ashcroft has minced no words about his positions on issues like a woman's right to choose and gun safety. He has advocated positions contrary to current law. That is his record. It is also, I might add, his right--just as any of us has the right to advocate legal change. But that is far from saying that he cannot faithfully enforce the law. There is more to his record that deserves consideration. This is a man who was elected not once, but five times by a majority of the people of his state--as their attorney general, governor, and Senator. He has devoted nearly three decades of his life to public service. He has, as far as anyone knows, upheld the public's trust throughout that time. If his nomination were to be decided on the basis of experience alone, he would have been among the first, rather than the last, of the President's Cabinet nominees to be considered by the Senate. As Attorney General and Governor, the record suggests that he did, in fact, uphold and advocate laws with which he disagreed. He endorsed Democratic proposals to fund new roads and schools. He signed legislation to increase the penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. He supported additional resources for legal services for the indigent. During his confirmation hearing, he swore under oath that he would uphold the law ``so help me God.'' He did so repeatedly and fervently. He swore that he would respect Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as the law of the land. He swore to uphold the federal law that prevents violence and intimidation at family planning clinics. He testified that the Brady law and the assault weapons ban are constitutional. He also testified that mandatory trigger locks, gun licensing and gun registration are all constitutional. And he vowed to hire without regard to sexual preference (although he did not, I should add, pledge to continue Attorney General Reno's policy of excluding sexual preference from security clearance decisions). I do not expect that John Ashcroft will change his views as Attorney General. But I do, have every right to expect, based upon his commitment to God Almighty, before the Judiciary Committee that he will keep his word to uphold the laws of the land, even those with which he profoundly disagrees. Mr. President, I would love to have the complete and total assurance he would do that. I cannot honestly conclude that he would not. Thus, it compels me to give him the benefit of the doubt because he has taken that oath fervently, before God Almighty, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A second concern I have about Senator Ashcroft's nomination is how he has treated other people. I refer very specifically to his conduct toward Judge Ronnie White, Ambassador James Hormel, and Bill Lann Lee, former head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division. Other colleagues have spoken and will speak about these cases in greater detail. Suffice it to say his treatment of their nominations went beyond the bounds of good manners and common decency. Too often, John Ashcroft refused to meet with these people; he failed to give them an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and he distorted, in my view, their records. In the case of Mr. Hormel, he deemed the wholly private matter of sexual orientation to be a factor ``eligible for consideration'' in whether he ought to be nominated. In the case of Judge White, he actively worked for his defeat-- without first giving him a chance to respond to misleading statements made against him on the Senate floor. His treatment of these men was cavalier at best--callous and calculated at worst. It is particularly troubling because my own limited experience with Senator Ashcroft was of a quite different nature. We worked together on only one issue that I recall--ending the embargo on food and medicine to Cuba. In that effort, he took a position that engendered considerable opposition in his own caucus. At all times, I found him reasonable and trustworthy. But there is nevertheless a record here of going after people in a harsh and unfair manner. I have always been suspicious of people who try to build a political career in part on the bones of their personal adversaries. Attacking motives, using people as political scapegoats, acting with reckless disregard to the reputations of others--these are the kinds of actions that I find contemptible, and that unfortunately have become all too common in public life today. I hope John Ashcroft will change and turn away from such behavior in the future. I believe that he can. As the saying goes, ``There is no sinner without a future, and no saint without a past.'' I believe John Ashcroft is a decent human being, and I take him at his word. If his flaws loom large, it is at least in part because they have been aired and examined in the magnifying light of public life. And while I will not excuse these flaws--particularly in his treatment of others as a public official--I will not engage in the same form of pay-back politics that seems to have a growing currency in our time. That is not to suggest that those who oppose him will have engaged in such tactics. On the contrary, I can well understand the principled basis of their opposition. That said, I will not do to John Ashcroft what has been done to too many people in recent years--including people like Ronnie White, James Hormel, and Bill Lann Lee. These individuals do not deserve the treatment they received. No one does. Not even John Ashcroft. My third and final concern is closely related to the first: whether his views on the critical domestic issues of our day would preclude him from using his office not just to uphold the law, but to uphold the spirit of freedom and equal justice that permeates every one of our laws. I find it not a little ironic that our new President, who calls himself a ``uniter, not a divider'', nominated for Attorney General a man who throughout his career has plunged so divisively into the most divisive issues of our time: civil rights, women's rights, equal rights, gun safety. On a different level, I am not in the least surprised. The President chose a nominee who reflects his own views on many of these same issues. I did not expect him to nominate a Democrat. Like nearly all of our colleagues, I have time and again supported Cabinet and other nominees with whom I disagreed on critical issues. Like them, I have a high degree of tolerance for differences of opinions when such nominations come before us--including on such issues as choice and guns. Indeed, I supported the nomination of Governor Thompson as Secretary of Health and Human Services, despite our strong differences on issues related to a woman's right to choose. There are certain differences that, I would argue, none of us should tolerate. And in that respect, the issue in John Ashcroft's public record that concerns me the most is the issue of race. If I thought John Ashcroft was a racist, I would oppose him as strongly as I possibly could on any other issue I have ever faced in my 25 years of public service. I urge each of our colleagues to do the same. We must not tolerate intolerance. But I do not believe that such a potent word applies to John Ashcroft. And it is lamentable, to say the least, that some outside of the Senate have used it to describe him. We of all people here in the Senate appreciate that words have meaning. So when someone uses a word such as ``racist'' to describe actions that, however objectionable, are not racist, then they reduce the impact of that word at those moments when it is most applicable. While by no means a path-breaker, as governor, John Ashcroft appointed more African-American jurists to the bench than any of his predecessors. He appointed a number of women, as well. His wife has taught at Howard University, a predominantly black institution. People of color testified in support of his nomination. Even Judge Ronnie White--about whom I will say more in a moment--said that he does not believe Senator Ashcroft's opposition to his nomination was racist in nature. In the Senate, he held a hearing on and condemned the practice of racial profiling. He supported twenty-six judicial nominees of African- American descent. And it should not go unmentioned that at least one member of his Senate staff--a devout Jew--has written that he found Senator Ashcroft not only tolerant, but supportive of his religious beliefs and the practical demands that those beliefs placed upon his time. Nevertheless, I am deeply troubled by many of his actions in this area. Most notably, he vehemently and persistently opposed efforts to integrate the St. Louis public schools. In fact, his actions were so vexatious that he was nearly cited for contempt for failing to comply with court orders to submit a plan to desegregate the schools of that fine city. He walked up to the line of disobeying the law--even appearing to boast of that fact when he ran for Governor for the first time. Those actions trouble me deeply. The record suggests that in times past John Ashcroft has submitted to the temptation to divide Americans along racial lines. The same record also suggests that he is someone without personal bias on matters of race, who has tried to heal rather than deepen our nation's ancient racial wounds. I hope that it is that John Ashcroft who, if confirmed, will lead the Department of Justice. Our nation has traveled too far--and we have too far still to go--to relent for even a moment in the struggle for equal justice. I realize that my vote for John Ashcroft may not be decisive. But I hope that it will be informative--informative most of all to John Ashcroft. Listen well, John Ashcroft. There are those of us here today who could easily vote against your confirmation, but have decided to give you a second chance--an opportunity that you denied to Ronnie White, Bill Lann Lee, James Hormel, and others. I hope this vote will not be in vain. I hope that John Ashcroft will uphold his pledge to enforce the laws of our land. I fervently hope that he will work to unite rather than divide our nation. And I hope, for the sake of our nation and this institution, that this vote will in some small measure help bring about an end to the growing predilection to treat nominations as ideological battlefields. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk legislation on behalf of myself, Senators McCain, Hollings and Hagel. The purpose of the bill we are introducing today is to help the incoming Bush administration in its efforts to strengthen international cooperation in combating international drug trafficking and drug-related crimes. As you know, the issue of how best to construct and implement an effective international counter narcotics policy has been the subject of much debate in this Chamber over the years, and I would add much disagreement. Our intention in introducing this legislation is to try to see if there is some way to end what has become a stale annual debate that has not brought us any closer to mounting a credible effort to eliminate or even contain the international drug mafia. We all can agree that drugs are a problem--a big problem. We can agree as well that the international drug trade poses a direct threat to the United States and to international efforts to promote democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the world, but most especially in our own hemisphere. While the international impact is serious and of great concern, of even greater concern to me personally are effects it is having here at home. Last year Americans spent more than $60 billion to purchase illegal drugs. Nearly 15 million Americans (twelve years of age and older) use illegal drugs, including 1.5 million cocaine users, 208,000 heroin addicts, and more than 11 million smokers of marijuana. This menace isn't just confined to inner cities or the poor. Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic and socioeconomic group in the United States. The human and economic costs of illegal drug consumption by Americans are enormous. More than 16,000 people die annual as a result of drug induced deaths. Drug related illness, death, and crime cost the United States approximately over $100 billion annually, including costs for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration. This is an enormously lucrative business--drug trafficking generates estimated revenues of $400 billion annually. The United States has spent more than $30 billion in foreign interdiction and source country counter narcotics programs since 1981, and despite impressive seizures at the border, on the high seas, and in other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and more readily available in the United States today than two decades ago. We think that for a variety of reasons, that the time is right to give the incoming Bush administration some flexibility with respect to the annual certification process, so that it can determine whether this is the best mechanism for producing the kind of international cooperation and partnership that is needed to contain this transnational menace. I believe that government leaders, particularly in this hemisphere, have come to recognize that illegal drug production and consumption are increasingly threats to political stability within their national borders. Clearly President Pastrana of Colombia has acknowledged that fact and has sought to work very closely with the United States in implementing Plan Colombia. Similarly President Vincente Fox of Mexico has made international counter narcotics cooperation a high priority since assuming office last December. These leaders also feel strongly, however, that unilateral efforts by the United States to grade their governments' performance in this area is a major irritant in the bilateral relationship and counterproductive to their efforts to instill a cooperative spirit in their own bureaucracies. The legislation we are introducing today recognizes that illicit drug production, distribution and consumption are national security threats to many governments around the globe, and especially many of those in our own hemisphere, including Mexico, Colombia, and other countries in the Andean region. It urges the Administration to develop an enhanced multilateral strategy for addressing these threats from both the supply and demand side of the equation. It calls upon the President to consider convening a conference of heads of state, at an early date, to review on a country-by-country basis, national strategies for drug reduction and prevention, and agree upon a time table for action. It also recommends that the President submit any legislative changes to existing law which he deems necessary in order to implement this international program within one year from the enactment of this legislation. In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual respect that must be present if the Bush administration's effort is to produce results, the bill would also suspend the annual drug certification procedure for a period of 2 years, while efforts are ongoing to develop and implement this enhanced multilateral strategy. I believe it is fair to say that while the certification procedure may have had merit when it was enacted into law in 1986, it has now become a hurdle to furthering bilateral and multilateral cooperation with other governments, particularly those in our own hemisphere such as Mexico and Colombia--governments whose cooperation is critical if we are to succeed in stemming the flow of drugs across our borders. Let me make clear however, that while we would not be ``grading'' other governments on whether they have ``cooperated fully'' during the two year ``suspension'' period, the detailed reporting requirements currently required by law concerning what each government has done to cooperate in the areas of eradication, extradition, asset seizure, money laundering and demand reduction during the previous calendar year will remain in force. We will be fully informed as to whether governments are following short of their national and international obligations. Moreover, if the President determines during the two year suspension period that the certification process may be useful in order to elicit more cooperation from a particular government he may go ahead and issue the annual certification decision with respect to that country. The annual determination as to which countries are major producers or transit sources of illegal drugs will also continue to be required by law. I believe that we need to reach out to other governments who share our concerns about the threat that drugs pose to the very fabric of their societies and our own. It is arrogant to assume we are the only Nation that cares about such matters. We need to sit down and figure out what each of us can do better to make it harder for drug traffickers to ply their trade. It is in that spirit that we urge our colleagues to give this proposal serious consideration. Together, working collectively we can defeat the traffickers. But if we expend our energies playing the blame game, we are certainly not going to effectively address this threat. We aren't going to stop one additional teenager from becoming hooked on drugs, or one more citizen from being mugged outside his home by some drug crazed thief. During the Clinton Administration, Barry McCaffrey, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy did a fine job in attempting to forge more cooperative relations with Colombia, Mexico and other countries in our own hemisphere. The OAS has also done some important work over the last several years in putting in place an institutional framework for dealing with the complexities of compiling national statistics so that we can better understand what needs to be done. The United Nations, through its Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention has also made some important contributions in furthering international cooperation in this area. However, still more needs to be done. We believe that this legislation will build upon that progress. I would urge my colleagues to give some thought and attention to our legislative initiative. We believe that if they do, that they will come to the conclusion that it is worthy of their support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these remarks.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate unanimously approved the nomination of Anthony Principi to be President Bush's Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In my judgment, Secretary Principi is supremely qualified to take on the challenges that will face the next Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and I fully supported his confirmation. Secretary Principi will bring a wealth of experience in a broad-range of capacities pertaining to veterans and veterans health to his work at the VA. A graduate of the United States Naval Academy and decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, Secretary Principi is personally aware of our veterans needs and concerns. He was appointed deputy secretary of Veterans Affairs by President George Bush in 1989 and served as Acting Secretary during 1992--providing him with a working knowledge of the VA's structure and an understanding of how to make the system work for our veterans. Most recently, Secretary Principi served as president of a California-based health care contractor. Through a blend of public and private service, Secretary Principi has assembled an impressive track record and compiled the type of practical experience that will serve him well at the VA. I was pleased to hear during Secretary Principi's nomination hearing that he plans to focus on veterans benefits, among other concerns. I agree strongly with this priority. Through dedicated service and sacrifice, generations of veterans and their families have answered the call to serve this nation in her darkest hours and most shining moments alike. They have kept the solemn covenant established by honored patriots past and have earned the gratitude of a grateful nation. With 139 facilities serving 3.5 million veterans and survivors, however, the task at hand is a daunting one. While broadly speaking, the VA provides high-quality health-care and services to our veteran community, ensuring that such a standard is maintained requires constant attention and a firm guiding hand. I am confident that Secretary Principi has the leadership and managerial skill, and perhaps more importantly, the compassion, to serve well our veterans and their families, as they have served our country. I commend President Bush for putting forth such a quality and qualified nominee. Secretary Principi will be a credit to this Administration. I am pleased that the Senate has moved emphatically to confirm him as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I look forward to working closely with him on issues of mutual concern, and I wish him well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the confirmation of Mel Martinez to be Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I am impressed by his background and his commitment to providing safe, affordable housing to all Americans. Based on my review of the Mr. Martinez's record as a public official in Orlando and Orange County and his expressed dedication to the mission of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I believe he will make a superb Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I support his nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mel Martinez has an extraordinary story. At the age of 15, he fled Castro's Cuba to come to the United States without his family. He stayed with a foster family for four years before the rest of his family could join him in Orlando. After earning a law degree from Florida State University, Mr. Martinez entered private practice, but also served on numerous public boards and committees. He served on the Board of Directors for the Orlando Public Housing Authority from 1982 to 1986. He was the Chair of the Orlando Affordable Housing Task Force in 1984, and President of the Orlando Utilities Commission from 1994 to 1997. Since 1998, Mr. Martinez has served as the Chief Elected Official of Orange County, Florida. He has a reputation for championing ``Smart Growth'' and for understanding the need to ensure affordable housing for all citizens. He even established a commission to identify new ways to provide affordable housing. Assuming that Mr. Martinez will be confirmed, he comes to HUD at a good time. Clearly, the nadir of HUD's existence was during the 1980s when the Department was riven by mismanagement and even worse. Jack Kemp deserves credit for his commitment to reform and improving housing opportunities for the people served by HUD. He worked hard and achieved significant progress. The last eight years have seen a continuation of reform and a realization of many of the goals of reform. The homeownership rate is now the highest in history--67.7% of all American families, nearly seven out of every ten families, own their own home. Nine million households have been added to the ranks of homeowners since 1993. We've also seen record high levels of homeownership for urban-center African- American and Hispanic families. The volume of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans has doubled in recent years. FHA now has about 6.7 million mortgages in its portfolio. FHA has gone from a $2.7 billion deficit to a current value of more than $16 billion. HUD has also recognized the changing needs of our aging population by producing a Housing Security Plan for Older Americans. HUD has made progress, but there is still much work to be done. There is still a pressing need to meet the continuing challenge of helping all Americans achieve the dream of homeownership and the promise first made over half a century ago in the National Housing Act: a safe and affordable place to live for all Americans. One of the most troubling paradoxes of our recent prosperity is that despite the fact that incomes have risen for people in every income category, safe and affordable housing is more elusive than ever for many low- and moderate-income families. That is because the cost of housing has outpaced the increase in wages in many of our urban centers, including areas of Connecticut that now rank among some of the most expensive housing markets in the country. We are losing public housing units in our country at an alarming rate. In some parts of the country, like the Northeast, the age of public housing units has necessitated the demolition of many units that have become too deteriorated to be rehabilitated. Federal policy has tried to provide public housing residents with housing vouchers, but frankly, there just aren't enough of those vouchers to go around. Further, in high-cost housing markets vouchers haven't always been useful to low-income families because they can't always find landlords who are willing to accept the vouchers. And even with vouchers, many find rent to be all but out of reach. We need more vouchers. We also need to invest in capital maintenance, and rehabilitation funding to ensure that public housing units remain habitable. And if we have dilapidated public housing, then we need to put money into building replacement units. While vouchers work in some places under some circumstances, they don't work everywhere under all circumstances. I also believe that the Federal government needs to think ahead to address issues that will arise as our elderly population continues to grow. We should consider creating tax and other incentives for construction of privately-owned assisted living units. The time has also come for HUD to consider developing new standards or approaches to ensure that senior citizens who live in public housing can stay in their homes and not be forced prematurely into expensive and less independent institutional care facilities. These are not trivial matters. They are tough problems. But from what I have been able to discern, Mel Martinez is up to the task. He has the knowledge, the energy, and the commitment to lead HUD as the agency begins to address these matters. I look forward to working with Mr. Martinez. I have already invited Mr. Martinez up to Connecticut. Connecticut has some of the oldest housing in the country, but we also have some of the country's most successful affordable housing projects. I welcome the opportunity to show him our state and, again, to work with him on behalf of all Americans seeking a good home for themselves and their families.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my enthusiastic support for the nomination of Colin L. Powell to be the next United States Secretary of State--a view that I believe is unanimous in this body. The reasons are obvious. General Powell is a distinguished American who will bring credit to the Bush administration and our country over the next four years. He is without doubt extremely well qualified by experience and temperament to represent our nation as its chief diplomat and foreign policy spokesman. I know a number of my colleagues have already gone on at length about the distinguished record of public service that General Powell has performed during his thirty-five years of military service before retiring, in 1993, from his post as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the interest of time, I will simply associate myself with their remarks in noting that General Powell's record of public service is truly impressive. I would point out, however that the various positions he has held over the years have prepared him well to assume his new responsibilities as Secretary of State. And, as if his years of public service were not enough, General Powell continued to serve his country and community in ``retirement.'' He agreed to chair President Clinton's Summit for America's Future in 1997 and founded and chaired America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, a non-profit organization dedicated to strengthening the character and competence of America's young people. General Powell's efforts to raise the profile of such an important issue, one that goes to the very fabric of our society, have clearly begun to bear fruit. As a Senator with a particular interest in the welfare of our children, I hope that America's Promise will continue its important work now that General Powell has a new ``day job.'' General Powell has now agreed to take on yet another assignment for the American people, this time as our country's chief diplomat and international spokesman. There is no doubt in my mind that he will do a superb job as Secretary of State. While some of President Bush's recent appointments have provoked controversy, the Rumsfeld/Powell--Defense/ Foreign Policy team has strong bipartisan support in Congress and has been welcomed by the American people. I want to commend President Bush for his wise choice in asking General Powell to join his administration, and I want to personally thank General Powell for his willingness to once again answer the call of public service to his country. No one would have begrudged him had he said, ``thanks but no thanks.'' His commitment and service to our country is truly extraordinary. Let me also say for the record that General Powell's recent predecessors, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher have also distinguished themselves during their tenures and have left the world a better place for their efforts. I want to thank them for their service to our country and wish them well in their future endeavors. On Thursday, I had the privilege of questioning General Powell at his nomination hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee. While we did not agree on every topic discussed, it was clear to me that General Powell has taken his nomination seriously and has educated himself on all aspects of foreign policy. He listened to every question attentively and answered every query thoughtfully. I was heartened in particular by the high priority he has placed on ensuring that adequate resources are made available to the State Department to make it possible for our diplomatic responsibilities to be effectively discharged around the world. In his prepared statement. General Powell also outlined his view of the world and emphasized that the United States cannot suddenly isolate itself from the global community. Moreover, he reiterated the necessity of the United States remaining engaged internationally in order to build upon the successes of previous administrations. I took the opportunity to question General Powell at length on issues of special concern to me. He pledged to continue to monitor the Irish and Middle East peace processes, and while I know we have a difference of opinion on this issue, he did not reject outright the idea of an International Criminal Court, although he made clear his concerns with the treaty as currently drafted. Furthermore, I was extremely pleased to hear that President Bush has pledged to take a more active role in foreign policy with respect to strengthening our relations with countries in our own hemisphere. Many of my colleagues know of my interest in this region. I had numerous questions for General Powell on a wide range of topics of interest in Latin America--Mexico, Plan Colombia, our complex relationship with Cuba, the political chaos in Peru, and how best to spur democratization in Haiti. While we did not discuss any of these topics in great depth, it was clear to me that General Powell has a clear grasp of the problems extant in this region of the world, and I look forward to working with him over the next four years on issues of mutual concern. General Powell demonstrated a willingness to listen to Senators thoughts and concerns over the six hours that his hearing lasted. Such an attitude can only serve to forge a strong and productive relationship between the State Department and the Senate. At the end of the day, dialogue between the Secretary and the Congress will ensure that the United States foreign policy agenda has strong bipartisan support here at home. U.S. foreign policy and national security interests will be best served if this proves to be so. If anyone can foster a spirit of bipartisanship in foreign policy, I believe that General Powell can. I look forward to working with him on issues of mutual interest and concern, and urge my colleagues to support his nomination. nomination of donald h. rumsfeld

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity on this historic inauguration day to rise in strong support of the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush's nominee for Secretary of Defense. In my judgment, Secretary Rumsfeld is eminently qualified for the post, a position he previously held some 25 years ago, and the decisive action I believe will be taken on the Senate floor today is a clear indication of the strong bipartisan support he has rightfully earned. Secretary Rumsfeld has long been a prominent and positive figure in American public life. Most recently, he chaired the U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and served as a member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission, positions that both inform his understanding and expertise, and demonstrate his diverse broad-ranging talents. A former naval aviator, Mr. Rumsfeld ably represented the people of Illinois in the House of Representatives for four terms before joining President Nixon's Cabinet in 1969. He faithfully served this country in a number of capacities, including United States Ambassador to NATO, White House Chief of Staff and, as I noted, the 13th Secretary of Defense under President Ford from 1975 through 1977. The Pentagon Mr. Rumsfeld presided presided over in the 1970s was very different from the one he will inherit today. Then, the world was divided by cold war and our nation was divided by the Vietnam war. Stung by the lessons of Vietnam, the efficacy of our military was in question. Today, the United States stands as the fortress of democracy and a compassionate champion of peace and freedom in an evolving global environment. Our military is the best equipped, the best trained and the most capable fighting force in the world. The difference between the two eras is profound, but let there be no question: this Secretary of Defense is the right person for today and the days to come. We face the world with strength and confidence, ever mindful of the challenges ahead. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the threat of cyber-terrorism, the potential vulnerability of our space- based assets, and the future of theater-wide and global missile defense are among our present and future challenges that will require innovative solutions. The health and well-being of our troops and their families, and our ability to train and retain the brightest and most talented personnel are persistent concerns that deserve close attention. Our commitment to maintaining a technological advantage on the battlefield and equipping our troops with the most advanced, reliable, and effective weaponry available must never waver. And we must achieve these objectives while providing the Navy with the resources to carry out its expanding and accelerating mission, transforming the Army into a more lethal and mobile force, building the Air Force's next generation air-superiority fighter and air-lift capacity, and maintaining the budgetary responsibility that has yielded America's strongest fiscal footing in a generation. At this moment of transition, I would also like to commend the outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, on a job well done. He was called ``the right person to secure the bipartisan support America's armed forces must have and clearly deserve,'' by President Clinton in 1997, and I believe his record of service confirms those remarks. Secretary Cohen focused on force modernization and troop readiness, and he made improving conditions for the fighting men and women of this nation the touchstone of his tenure. Secretary Rumsfeld will have a difficult act to follow. The challenges ahead are many. The course laid out by President Bush is neither quickly achieved nor easily traversed, but it gives me confidence to know that Donald Rumsfeld has answered the call to serve this nation once more. I would also like to express my appreciation to his wife, Joyce, and the Rumsfeld family for the countless sacrifices they will make in course of his term. In Secretary Rumsfeld, we have found the right person for the job. I look forward to working with him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise to support the nomination of Dr. Roderick Paige as Secretary of Education. Education is ``the hub of the wheel'' of our society, founded as it is on the principle of equal opportunity. If we succeed in making our education system as good as it can be, there is no national priority that will not benefit. If we do not succeed, we leave things to change. So, I believe that Secretary of Education is one of the most, if not the most, important positions in the President's cabinet. Dr. Paige will succeed Secretary Riley, a remarkable man who has done a remarkable job promoting and improving education for eight years. I was happy to learn at Dr. Paige's hearing before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of his close friendship with Secretary Riley, and also was happy, though not surprised, to read in the Washington Post on January 19, that Secretary Riley welcomed President Bush's choice of Dr. Paige. Dr. Paige comes to the Department of Education with outstanding credentials. He has extensive experience in elementary, secondary, and higher education. From 1994 until his selection as Secretary, Dr. Paige served as Superintendent of the Houston Independent School District. Prior to that, he served as the Dean of the College of Education at Texas Southern University. In recognition of his work in Houston, Dr. Paige was the 2000 National Alliance of Black School Educators' national Superintendent of the Year and is the Texas Association of School Administrators' nominee for 2001 National Superintendent of the Year. In 1999, he was one of the Council of Great City Schools' two Outstanding Urban Educators. To me, what is equally as heartening as all of Dr. Paige's experience and awards is his background. His father was a principal, his mother was a teacher and librarian, and all three of his sisters are educators. I also come from a family of educators. Three of my aunts, my sister, and my brother have devoted decades of their lives to teaching. As Dr. Paige said at his hearing, the virtues of faith and hard work, love of country, and the importance of the American dream that his parents instilled in their five children gave him the confidence to graduate from a segregated high school, to pursue higher education, and to serve his country in the Navy. When a person grows up in that kind of environment, I know that his commitment to education is heartfelt and deep. Finally, Dr. Paige's experience and commitment to education showed in his statement and answers to questions at his hearing. I was impressed by the breadth of his knowledge and his ability to respond on the spot to such a wide range of questions on so many aspects of education policy. Of course, my great respect for Dr. Paige's integrity and dedication does not mean that I have no concerns about positions that he has taken during his distinguished career. For example, Dr. Paige supported the use of public funds to pay private school tuition in Huston and supported that at his hearing, as well. There are approximately 53 million children in elementary and secondary schools in the United States--approximately 48 million of those attend public schools. I think that voucher programs, although Dr. Paige chose not to use that term, divert much needed funds from our public schools. I also want to work with Dr. Paige to ensure that Federal funds continue to benefit low-income children. I don't question that most education decisions are and should be made at the State and local level, but excellence in education also is a national priority and the Federal government has a role to play. We provide only about seven percent of elementary and secondary school funding, but we play a very significant role in ensuring that groups that may have less of a voice in funding decisions, such as underprivileged students and their families, receive the resources they need, and I believe that we need to continue doing that. And I am concerned about President Bush's proposal to move Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education and change the program's focus to reading. I'm not out to defend anyone's bureaucratic turf. I'm interested in helping low-income children and their families, not from which building in Washington the program is administered. Since 1965, Head Start programs have provided comprehensive early childhood development, educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services to more than 17 million low- income pre-school children and their families. Dr. Edward Zigler, one of Head Start's founders, said in the December 23, 2000 New York Times that the vast majority of three or four-year olds do not have the cognitive ability to ``attribute meaning to abstract symbols, like written words.'' He added that even the few three or four-year olds who do have that ability are better off spending their time in the Head Start learning behaviors needed in school, like listening, taking turns, and getting along with other children. Dr. Zigler said that what children need to be prepared to succeed in school are good health, the early involvement of their parents, and relief from the complications of poverty. That's exactly what Head Start provides. Of course, literacy is important, and Congress recognized that when we reauthorized Head Start in 1998--which we did in a very bipartisan manner. No one questions the importance of teaching children to read, but it's not as simple as providing more reading classes. A child won't benefit from reading classes alone is she hasn't eaten breakfast, or has an undiagnosed vision problem, or hasn't learned how to socialize with other children. Those kinds of benefits, which Head Start provides, are not ``add-ons'' to preparing a child to succeed in school, they are essential to it. As Dr. Zigler said, Head Start's job then, is to lay a foundation for literacy. So, I think we need to be cautious about changing a program that does so much good for so many children and families. But, that said, I have every confidence in Dr. Paige's qualifications and commitment to America's children. President Bush has spoken often of the need for bipartisanship in Washington. I have worked with many of my Republican colleagues for many years on education policy; for example, with Senator DeWine on the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, with Senator Domenici on character education, with Senator Jeffords on 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and with Senator Shelby on commercialism in schools. I hope and expect that Dr. Paige and the Senate will be able to work together to build on the education accomplishments of the past 8 years, and to work toward the goal that we all share--that our children receive the education they need and deserve.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take a few brief moments to comment on the nomination of Paul O'Neill to be the Treasury Secretary of the United States. I first want to commend President Bush on choosing such a highly qualified candidate to take over the many responsibilities demanded of the United States Treasury Secretary. I fully support Mr. O'Neill's nomination, and I look forward to working with him in the new administration. Mr. O'Neill brings to the position of Treasury Secretary a broad range of experience both in the public and private sector. He began his career as an engineer with Morrison-Knudsen, Inc. in Anchorage, Alaska and then went on to serve as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Ford administration. In 1977, Mr. O'Neill became the vice president of International Paper and in 1985 assumed the position of President. This path ultimately led him to aluminum giant Alcoa where, as chairman, he has been credited with the company's revival in the face of the industry's struggles nationwide. Based on his past accomplishments, I believe Mr. O'Neill will bring valuable insights to the critically important post to which he has been nominated. I noted with interest Mr. O'Neill's comments during his confirmation hearing about the role tax cuts should play in our economy, namely, that they are not the sole means by which to stimulate a slowing economy. This is an important cautionary note that we all should heed as we move forward on the issue of tax cuts. While I support tax relief and reform, I also believe that our Nation's tax policy should be guided by three main principals. First, it should be fair. Those who need tax relief the most should receive the most relief. Second, any tax reform must be consistent with our commitment to maintain a balanced budget and reduce our national debt. In my opinion, this is the best gift we can give to future generations of Americans. And finally, we must leave room to meet our existing obligations, like defense, education, law enforcement, Medicare, and Social Security, as well as the new challenges that most certainly lie ahead. The goal of this new Congress and administration must be to maintain and build upon the prosperity achieved over the past eight years. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. The national poverty rate is at its lowest mark in 20 years. The economy has created 22 million new jobs since 1993. We have moved from record deficits to record surpluses. And October 2000 marked this country's 115th consecutive month of economic expansion--the longest period of economic growth in our nation's history. Our future policy decisions should reflect a commitment to foster this progress and growth in the coming years. And while Mr. O'Neill will be inheriting a strong economy, there still remain a number of challenges that I believe will deserve special attention so as to keep our economy moving in a positive direction. One of the most critical tasks to be faced is the aging of America, and specifically, the stability of Social Security. As new levels of demand are placed on Social Security, we must look to reasonable and balanced proposals that will ensure a financially secure foundation for current and future retirees. We must also strive to maintain the United States position as a trade leader in an ever-increasing global marketplace. It is in our best long-term economic interests to remain an active trading partner with our allies and to be open to the opportunities that exist in emerging markets. At the same time, we must remain aware of the needs and job security of American workers and the goods they produce. Furthermore, emphasis should be placed on maintaining the competitiveness of our financial institutions. And one of the biggest challenges will be how to expand our nation's prosperity to more Americans--Americans who have yet to reap the benefits of our dynamic economy and who strive to achieve more financial security for themselves and their families. In closing, I once again wish to express my support for Mr. O'Neill's nomination. He has presented himself as a fair and honest candidate who has expressed a willingness to work with all Members of Congress on our nation's most important priorities. I remain hopeful that we will be able to do so, and urge my colleagues to support this nominee.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Bankruptcy Reform Conference Report that is being considered by the Senate. Let me start by noting that there is strong opposition to this bill--in its current form--by consumer advocacy groups such as the National Women's Law Center, the Association for children for Enforcement of Support, and the Consumer Federation of America. This conference report is an illustration of what happens when a sound idea is submitted to an unsound process. The idea of reforming the Bankruptcy Code to stop obvious abuses was an idea that had broad support. It was a bipartisan issue. Regrettably, however, this modest and sensible idea--the idea that we should close the loopholes that a small number of people were using to game the system--has been warped into legislation that goes far beyond its original purposes. The process that created this conference report was highly partisan and highly unusual. Its provisions were drafted by one party meeting in secret, with no formal input from members of the Democratic Party. Indeed, no formal conference was ever held. Instead, at the last minute the majority found a stalled Department of State authorization bill that was being managed by Senators who were sympathetic to their version of the bankruptcy bill and they performed a legislative bait and switch. They deleted every word from the Department of State bill and then inserted every word of their bankruptcy bill. Now the Senate is being asked to vote on a so-called Department of State authorization bill that contains not a word about the Department of State. The Department of State bill is nothing but an empty vessel into which a so-called ``compromise'' bankruptcy bill has been poured. But we have to be careful here--the word ``compromise'' doesn't mean what it used to mean, what it normally means in the legislative process. This isn't a compromise between the two Houses of Congress. This isn't a compromise between the two parties. This compromise bill is the result of negotiations among like-minded men and women of the same political party. This is a majority-only bill. There has been no meaningful compromise at all. Aside from the procedural problems with how this bill has been handled, I have deep and serious concerns about the substance of this legislation. This legislation will unintentionally injure honest hard-working Americans who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. The reason that we have a Bankruptcy Code is because life sometimes deals people a bad hand and we believe that it's important to give people a fresh start--an opportunity to overcome the financial misfortunes that have struck them. This principle is so fundamental that the Constitution expressly lists the establishment of uniform bankruptcy laws as a congressional responsibility. It seems that the Framers understood that society is better off if we find an orderly way to allow people to pay off their debts to the degree possible, and then get back on their feet as productive citizens. Regrettably, that principle seems to suffer at the hands of this conference report. Evidence suggests that the vast majority of people who file for bankruptcy do so because some financial crisis beyond their control has plunged them into debt that they cannot avoid. People file for bankruptcy because they've lost their jobs or because a child needs medical care that is not covered by insurance. The evidence shows that abusive filings are the exception, not the rule. The median income of the average American family filing for a chapter 7 bankruptcy is just above $20,000 per year, according to the General Accounting Office. The majority of people who file for bankruptcy are single women who are heads of households, elderly people trying to cope with medical costs, again people who have lost their jobs, or families whose finances have been complicated by divorce. For the most part, we are talking about working people or elderly people on fixed incomes, who through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times and need the protection of bankruptcy to help put their lives back together. It is also worth noting that last year, the per capita personal bankruptcy rate dropped by more than 9 percent, and again this year the bankruptcy rate has dropped. The impact that this legislation would have on single-parent households is particularly disturbing to me. Single parents have one of the hardest jobs in America. Most work all day, cook meals, keep house, help their children with homework, and schedule doctors' appointments, parent-teacher meetings, and extracurricular activities. Life isn't easy for working single parents and often the financial assistance they receive in the form of alimony or child support is critical to keeping their families from falling into poverty. I believe that the conference report before the Senate would frustrate the efforts of single-parent families to collect support payments. I understand that the proponents of this bill believe that they have treated single-parent families fairly. But what I am worried about is the unintended--but perfectly foreseeable--consequences of allowing more debts to survive bankruptcy. For more than 100 years, the Bankruptcy Code has given women and children an absolute preference over all others who have claims on a debtor's estate. Under the well-established rule, if a divorced person files for bankruptcy, the court doesn't require that person's ex-spouse or children to compete with creditors for the funds needed to pay child support and alimony. Instead, alimony and child support are taken out of the debtor's monthly income first and if there is anything left over, it is made available to commercial creditors. If there is nothing left over, then the commercial or consumer debts are discharged and the debtor's only remaining obligation is to the ex-spouse and children. This conference report would change the rules. For the first time, it would make credit card and other consumer debts essentially nondischargable. So, while a divorced spouse would still be obliged to pay alimony and child support, his or her other unsecured debts would remain intact. Proponents of this bill say this does no harm to divorced spouses and their children because ex-spouses are still at the front of the collections line. But there is a huge practical difference between being first in line and being the only one in line. Under current law, nonsupport debts are often discharged and debtors can focus entirely on meeting their obligations to their children and ex-spouses. If this conference report becomes law, that will change--debtors will not be able to focus on their children, they will--as a matter of law--have to divert limited financial resources to pay back consumer creditors. I believe that this change will inevitably lead to conflicts between commercial creditors and single parents who are owed support and alimony payments. Sure, they will be first in line, but single parents will be competing with large creditors. Creditors, I might add, who are well-represented by teams of lawyers. I believe that it is a mistake to make single parents compete with teams of lawyers for the money they need to feed and clothe and educate their children. I understand the perspective that says that all debts should be paid--but when debtors simply cannot pay all of their debts, then I believe that our laws should protect the interests of children and families first. Under this legislation, a child support payment could very well be reduced in order to satisfy an unsecured commercial creditor. In my view, that change would place the well-being of a child at a disadvantage and elevate the status of the unsecured creditor. Low-income children and families will be put at a practical disadvantage by this bill and will ultimately suffer greater economic deprivation because they cannot afford to compete with sophisticated creditors. Mr. President, Congress should reform the Bankruptcy Code, but we need to do so in a responsible and effective and fair way. In my opinion, this conference report--even though it was well-intentioned-- has not answered this call.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to share for a few moments this afternoon, before we adjourn for the day, if not for the week, some thoughts on the ongoing events, most obviously, the 2000 Presidential election. I will talk about some of the mechanics of this and some of the comments made earlier in the day by my colleagues from Iowa and Pennsylvania, and some thoughts that they shared. Before getting to the substance of that, I am a Democrat. Obviously, as a Democrat, I am hopeful Al Gore and my colleague from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, will be elected President and Vice President. Certainly, I fully understand how colleagues of a different political persuasion and other Americans hope that George Bush and Dick Cheney will win the election. I suspect maybe the Presiding Officer may share those views. The most important belief everyone ought to have is that this process, at the end of it, whenever that comes--whether it is the end of this week or sometime over the next several days or weeks--that if it takes a little time, that is uncomfortable, but the most important conclusion is that it be one the American people support, even those who would have wished a different outcome in the election. I served on the Select Committee on Assassinations 20 years ago in which we reopened the investigation of the assassinations of John Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. What possible analogy could those two events have with this? Well, my colleague from Rhode Island and others may recall that the Warren Commission, which did the initial investigation into the tragic assassination of President Kennedy, was urged at the time to hurry up, to rush to get the job done, and they did. In retrospect, they did as well as they could have under the circumstances. But there was sufficient pressure to get the job done. Several years later, we had all sorts of questions raised that the Warren Commission did not address during the period of its consideration. I don't think we ever would have satisfied some of the elements who are always going to be convinced of conspiracy theories. But for an awful lot of other Americans, had the Commission taken a bit more time and gone through the facts a bit more carefully, we could have avoided the problems that ensued thereafter, including a whole new investigation of the assassination some 13 years after the events occurred in 1963. The analogy is this: Obviously, we are not talking about that length of time, but while I hear people urging a quick decision, a fast decision, we all understand, while we like clarity and we would like a decision made immediately, we need to place at least as much emphasis, if not more, on this decision being the right decision, that the decision is seen as being fair and just and an expression, as close as we can have in an election involving more than 100 million people across the country, of the will of the American people. That is going to be difficult because of the closeness of the race. It is important to get this done quickly, but it is more important to get it done correctly. We do not want a substantial percentage of the American public questioning the legitimacy of the 43rd President of the United States-- whether that is Al Gore or Gov. George Bush. The American people should support that choice and have confidence that the choice was the right one. I hope that, while there are those clamoring for a quick decision, we get the right decision. Utilizing the courts and utilizing manual counting ought not to frighten people. Courts are used in our country when there is a dispute that can't be resolved, where facts and theories of law are in dispute. If that is the case, you go to court and try to get an answer. You would do that if you were talking about county commissioner or secretary of State. In the State of Florida, we should do no less with the office of the President of the United States. In the final analysis, the new President will look back and be grateful that we took the time to get it right; that we did not rush to a quick judgment here for the sake of what may appear to be sort of an early way to achieve a win. Having said all of that, there will be much talk in the coming weeks about what went wrong here, what could have been done differently, and issues around the electoral college, whether we ought to keep it, abandon it, or reform it. Are there things we can do from a Federal standpoint to assist our respective States so we don't have the kind of confusion that has emerged here and regarding some of the ballot choices and equipment used to record people's votes? There will be all sorts of ideas shared. My first suggestion and hope would be that people take time to step back and examine our current situation. I get nervous when people have quick solutions for an immediate problem that has emerged, such as here with this close election. Lets not forget that we have been a republic for 211 years. This will be the fourth such election out of 43 Presidential races where there has been a close race, where the popular vote and the electoral votes--and we don't know the final outcome of this one--have a different result. Before we decide we want to radically abandon this system, my strong suggestion to my colleagues and others who will be commenting, is to take some time to think it through carefully and not rush out and be offering proposals and bills that we may come to regret. There have been some 200 proposals made to amend the Constitution regarding the electoral college over the last 200 years, many of which have been suggested over the last 40 years. Before we jump to these proposals, I suggest that we think them through. I listened with interest earlier this day to our colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, discuss two issues that are obviously timely and important ones at this moment about reform in the electoral college. I wish to address those issues for a few minutes. First, let me join my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, in congratulating Senator Specter for introducing the concept of a bipartisan commission to examine whether we might--at least in federal elections--develop more accurate and uniform methods of recording and reporting the votes cast by the citizens of our Nation. I know at least one newspaper in the country--the New York Times--has already editorialized on this topic in favor of modernizing what many consider to be a ballot system that is in many respects and in many areas of the country fairly archaic in terms of its technological sophistication. I will join Senator Specter and others in developing a more thoughtful approach to this dilemma. It is a dilemma because control of elections has been left to the decision of States across the country. The federal role is somewhat limited in this, to put it mildly. It is more a question of how we can work with the States in a cooperative fashion when it comes to federal elections--elections beyond mere consideration for the offices in the respective States and counties. I think we have a legitimate interest. Certainly, that has been borne out by the events of the last week in this country. Certainly, we have seen, as I say, in the last week issues raised that none of us could imagine would have been brought up prior to the results on Tuesday night. I think the events of the past week have shaken many Americans out of a false sense that our system--or should I say systems--of tabulating ballots is absolutely error free. It never has been perfect. No one disputes that the hallmark of our system--namely free and fair elections--is as strong as it has ever been. Indeed, if we have learned anything over the past week, it is the truth of the maxim that it is as ingrained in our consciousness as the Pledge of Allegiance or the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence: In America, every citizen counts. That is a mantra we hear over and over again: Every citizen counts. Every citizen has a part to play in choosing how we shall be governed. Many of us have said over the last week: Don't ever let me hear anybody say again that every vote doesn't count, or a single vote doesn't count. You have seen that the margins in the State of New Mexico in the Presidential race may be down to 17 or 20 votes. We had a congressional race in my State a few years ago where out of 200,000 votes cast, 4 ballots determined who the Congressman of the Second Congressional District would be. So we all say every vote counts, every citizen counts. While our system may be the fairest in the world, we have been reminded over the past week that it is not infallible. Few areas of governance are as decentralized as voter administration. According to a news report today, election decisions are made not only by each of the 50 States but by more than 3,000 counties and towns, where they have separate rules outside of the State rules. So 3,000 different jurisdictions in this country have something to say about how elections are conducted in America. The methods of voting vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction--from the marking of paper ballots to the use of the Internet, as we have seen. By far the most common form of voting in our Nation remains the punching of paper ballots. It is estimated that some 40 percent of voters utilized that method to vote on election day. This is so despite the evidence that paper ballots are more vulnerable, than any other voting system, to voter error. We have all become familiar in the past six days with the variety of ways a ballot now may be marked--language I never heard before, terminology I never heard mentioned. All of a sudden, we have all become familiar with things called ``chads'' and parts of chads. I never heard of a ballot being ``pregnant,'' but I now know that it can be in this country, which is a startling revelation. So we have heard a new vernacular in our society. People everywhere are learning about the variations of the chad: the ``pregnant'' chad, the ``dimpled'' chad, the ``hinged'' chad, the ``swinging'' chad. These are all words that those who may have been involved in the arcane business of voter issues know, but for most Americans these are new words. Beyond the punching of a paper ballot, some 20 percent of voters use mechanical lever machines that are no longer made. Another 25 percent fill in a circle, a square, or an arrow next to the candidate or ballot question of their choice. Only about 10 percent use a computer screen or other electronic means to have their votes recorded automatically. One consequence of using a patchwork system where most votes are cast by paper ballot is that errors can affect outcomes. That is what the people and officials of Florida are obviously trying to contend with even as I speak on the floor of the United States Senate this afternoon. Another consequence, however, should be just as much a cause for concern, and that is that in a great many jurisdictions the voting process might not only be prone to a significant risk of error, but a significant risk of delay on election day as well. Throughout the country during the past election, we heard a great many reports of long lines at the polls. One hour, two hours, three hours. People were waiting a long, long time in many parts of the Nation to cast their ballots. Certainly, the vast majority of those who did endure these waits did so with patience and a deep sense of the importance of the moment. However, the question we must ask ourselves is what we might try to do to shorten those lines. We must recognize that, in an era when we can pay bills, buy goods and services, and do many other things by computer, fewer and fewer Americans are waiting in line for anything anymore. As long lines continue to become an anachronism in other parts of our lives, voters' patience on election day can also diminish. If their patience diminishes, then more may choose not to vote, and that will be the worst result of all. We must realize that--much as they might want to--many local jurisdictions simply lack the resources to modernize their voting systems. One county in a State of the eastern seaboard has records dating from the 1800s. Of 890,000 people on that county's voting rolls, a recent study found that 775,000 were either dead or living someplace else. I will repeat that. In one jurisdiction, of the 890,000 people on the county's voting rolls, 775,000 were either dead or living in another jurisdiction. That fact, and others, underscore that voting recordkeeping and equipment is expensive and also outdated. That is a simple and unavoidable fact for many communities that struggle to find resources to meet the daily needs of their people for police, fire protection, trash collection, and other services. So I hope that as we move forward or toward the conclusion of this Congress and the commencement of the 107th Congress, and we all wait for January 20th, where a few feet from here a new President will be sworn into office as the 43rd President--during this time--and this is why we should do it now--we give serious consideration to the concept of a bipartisan commission to examine how we might encourage more accurate methods of recording votes by the citizens of our Nation. I also hope that such a commission would provide guidance as to how we might assist communities in finding the means to do so. This is a valuable role that we can play to assist these counties and local communities with resources that will enable them to modernize the voting equipment that they lack today. I look forward to working with the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Iowa, and others--I am sure there will be many more--who are interested in working on this issue and giving it some serious attention. Secondly, let me enter the discussion on the electoral college. My colleagues, Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Torricelli, as well as Senator Specter and others, have discussed this matter in the last few days. On talk radio, in diners, in taxi cabs, and anywhere you want to go, you can now get into a deep conversation about the electoral college. We have all become familiar in the last few days. Many people were unaware that Presidents have been elected by the electoral college since the first days of the republic. So there has been educational value to this confusion over who the next President will be. The electoral college is an arcane institution in the minds of many, but it has played a very important and valuable role. Certainly now is a good time to consider the role of the electoral college in electing American Presidents. I hope that we will proceed, as I said at the outset--with caution--on this matter. I would be concerned, frankly, about abolishing the electoral college. Those who have urged us to do so ought to pause, step back, and give some thought to what they have suggested. If you think it is confusing in Florida today, imagine the difficulty in deciding a Presidential election as close as this, with ballots in contention and people going to court not in one State, but potentially in 50 States? So while I think the electoral college may need serious reform, we ought to be careful about abandoning it. Notwithstanding the intentions of the Founders, many which remain valid, the electoral college continues to serve, in my view, an important function in our present day election system. While we elect one President for the Nation, it reminds us that we do so as a republic of States, not as a single political unit. Were we to elect the President solely on the basis of the popular vote, Presidential candidates would have little incentive, in my view, to visit with the people who live outside the major population centers. State boundaries would, for purposes of a Presidential election, be virtually wiped out, and candidates would have little incentive to learn from a State's officials and citizens about the concerns particular to their jurisdiction or State. So the consequences of abolishing the electoral college should be considered with grave, grave care. I am aware that there have been numerous proposals to modify the electoral college during the course of history. As I mentioned, the 12th amendment to the Constitution was ratified June 15, 1804. It represents one of those proposals and, today, the only successful one. One proposal was put forward in the 87th Congress, I might point out, by a Senator from Connecticut who happened to be my father, I discovered the other day. He offered it in January of 1961 after the Kennedy and Nixon election. He proposed then--and admitted there was nothing unique about his ideas; they were ones that were incorporated from the various other proposals that were suggested. So it was not an original set of ideas coming off that election which was a close election as well--he proposed a system where each State's electors would be apportioned to the candidates in proportion to the candidates' percentage share of the State's popular votes. Nebraska, Iowa, and Maine do that today. In fact, States could do that on their own initiative. In fact, it would not require a change in the Constitution if the various States wanted to modify how they would allocate their electoral votes. Perhaps we should consider that proposal or some variation on it. As I said, there were many proposals offered. Perhaps we should also consider the two States that do not apportion the votes on a winner- take-all basis: Maine and Nebraska. Perhaps we should consider--as Maine does now--apportioning its votes according to which candidate wins which congressional districts in a given State. That has had some value. In fact, you may recall in the waning days of this election, the Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman, my colleague from Connecticut, made a special trip to Maine to campaign in one congressional district up there that was close. It turned out that trip he made had some value. It was worth one electoral vote. If you apportion these either by congressional district or by how many votes the respective candidates received, I could see Democrats going to places such as Utah, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi--places in which we have not done very well in Presidential campaigns. I could see Republicans coming to Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts where they may not get the winning margin, but they might get 40 percent, 45 percent. So it is worth it to go after those electoral votes. Why is that good government? Because it is important that these candidates come to our respective States, learn about the people's concerns. It makes it more competitive, gets people involved; their vote means something, not only a popular vote but also an electoral vote. So I think reform of the electoral college, and there are a variety of other ideas, is worth while. But again, I caution against the idea that somehow abandoning the system would serve the best interests of the country for over two hundred years. These are important matters. They go to the heart of our democratic system, the electoral college, how we vote, how ballots are counted. I happen to believe we are going to come out of this in good shape. I know there are those calling this a constitutional crisis. It is not a constitutional crisis. The system is working. We are confronted with a unique situation, but the Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution in their wisdom anticipated there would be difficulties with Presidential elections. They set up a series of safeguards. They are not perfect. Some need to be changed, but they work. We are now confronting one unique in the two-century history of our Nation, but we will come out of this well. There are good people in Florida, good citizens who care about this, who will do the right thing before this process is concluded. On January 20, we will gather on the west front of this majestic building and we will welcome with good heart and good spirit and great cheer the 43rd President of the United States. That President will be a very humbled individual. There will be no announcements of mandates in this election. Maybe the American people showed their infinite wisdom collectively by saying by dividing this as evenly as we can, not only in this Chamber and the House, but the Presidential election, maybe you ought to try to work these things out; get together and resolve some of the outstanding problems we face every day such as a prescription drug benefit, a real Patients' Bill of Rights, improving the country's educational system, myriad transit problems, just to name a few. Those are the problems Americans wrestle with every day and they want to see us wrestle with them here and come up with some answers. They may have just sent us the method and means by which we will achieve that in this coming Congress by making this election as close as it is so no one can claim they have a majority of Americans' solution to this problem. But they did speak with almost one resounding single voice. We ought to take a look at the electoral process and then get about the business of going to work on America's problems. By making this election as close as they have, I suggest they may have offered us the opportunity and means by which we could do in the coming Congress what we failed to do in the one we are now winding down. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to speak, if I may, over the next few minutes, on a couple of different, unrelated subject matters. The first I would like to spend a few minutes talking about is the situation in Colombia, South America, and, as we have watched events unfold over the last several days, the great concern I have about a deteriorating situation in that nation. Then, second, I will spend a couple of minutes talking about two of our colleagues who decided to retire from the Senate this year, Senator Connie Mack of Florida, my good friend, and Senator Pat Moynihan of New York. I will take a few minutes on these separate, distinct subject matters. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about events in Colombia. It is a wonderful nation, one of the oldest continuous democracies in Latin America. It is a nation with a wonderful, rich heritage, delightful people, a nation that has made significant contributions to the stability and well-being in Latin America historically. Over the last few decades, we have seen Colombia become a nation whose sovereignty, whose very nationhood, is placed in jeopardy because of the turmoil that is shredding this marvelous nation and wonderful people. Earlier this year, Congress considered the administration's $1.3 billion emergency request to support the program called Plan Colombia. I voted for that program, as did a majority of our colleagues in the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives. I said at the time of the debate, that while I believed a substantial assistance package was absolutely necessary to help address the multiple challenges confronting the Colombian people and the Andean region as a whole, I would not have allocated the monies among the various programs in the exact same way as the administration had proposed, nor would I have fashioned the assistance package exactly the same way that the Congressional package which was signed into law. That is often times the case here. This is not unique. But there were those who expressed deep concerns about how the package was put together. I happened to have been one of them. But I also thought it was so vitally important the United States should take a stand and try to do what we could to make a difference in Colombia, not just because of the relationship we have with the democratic nation to our south but for the very enlightened self-interest of trying to deal with the crippling problem of drug addiction and drug abuse in this country. Let me explain why, as many of my colleagues and others are already familiar. I believe we as Americans need to respond to Colombia's difficulties because, among other things, Colombia is currently the world's leading supplier of cocaine and a major source of heroin. That means the difficulties Colombia faces are not simply a Colombian problem; they are our problem as well, since these illicit substances end up in the United States, in our cities and small towns all across this country. Today there are an estimated 14 million drug consumers in the United States; 3.6 million of the 14 million are either cocaine or heroin addicts. Colombian heroin and cocaine are the substances of choice in nearly 80 percent of the total U.S. consumption of these drugs. The impact on U.S. communities has been devastating. Every year, 52,000 Americans lose their lives in drug-related deaths throughout this Nation. The numbers are going up, and 80 percent of the product is coming from Colombia. This is why we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. The economic costs, we are told, of these deaths and drug-related illnesses and problems exceed $110 billion a year. That is a sizable financial impact. The $1.3 billion that we appropriated to help Colombia respond to this situation is what was decided would be helpful. That is why I supported it, despite, as I mentioned earlier, the difficulties I had with it. A little history is important to give the American people some idea of what the nation of Colombia has been through over the last decade and a half or two decades. Colombia's current crisis did not just happen overnight. Yet its civil society has been ripped apart for decades by the violence and corruption which rages in that nation. Colombia has long been characterized as having one of the most violent societies in the Western Hemisphere. It means historically Colombian civil leaders, judges, and politicians have put their lives in jeopardy simply by aspiring to positions of leadership and responsibility. Over this past weekend, for example, there were press reports that 36 candidates running for Colombia's municipal elections had been murdered by the time of the election. That is just in the last 2 weeks. An additional 50 of these candidates for municipal office were kidnaped in the nation of Colombia. On a daily basis, judges, prosecutors, human rights activists, journalists, and even church officials live in fear for their lives. That has been the state of Colombian life for far too long. Between 1988 and 1995, more than 67,000 Colombians were victims of political violence in the small nation to our south. Political violence continued in the last half of the 1990s. Between 10,000 and 15,000 people have lost their lives since 1995, losing between 2,000 and 3,000 people annually to this violence. Life in Colombia has been made even more difficult as a result of additional violence and intimidation by drug traffickers, and these are one of the major causes of it. The right wing paramilitaries and left- wing revolutionary groups are also responsible. High-profile assassinations of prominent Colombian officials trying to put an end to the drug cartels began more than 20 years ago with the 1984 murder of the Minister of Justice, Rodrigo Lara Bonilla. In 1985, a year later, terrorists stormed the Palace of Justice in Colombia and murdered 11 supreme court justices, gunned down 11 supreme court justices who supported the extradition of drug traffickers. A year later in 1986, another supreme court justice was murdered by drug traffickers, as well as a well-known police captain and prominent Colombian journalist who had spoken out against these cartels. These narco-terrorists then commenced on a bombing campaign in that nation throughout the year on shopping malls, hotels, neighborhood parks, killing scores and scores of innocent people and terrorizing the general population. Before the drug kingpin Pablo Escobar was captured and killed by the police in 1993, he had been directly responsible for the murder of more than 4,000 Colombians. That was one individual. It is rather heartening that despite the deaths that occurred just in the last few days and the kidnappings of people who run for public office, despite the fears that are pervasive in this society, some 140,000 people allowed their names to appear on electoral ballots last Sunday for various government offices including governors, mayors and other municipal posts. It is an act of real courage. We are about to have an election in this country, and we think it is a tough day if we face a negative ad run by one of our opponents or if we get a screen door slammed in our face or someone calls us a name. In Colombia, when you run for public office, even at very local levels your life is in jeopardy for doing so. I express my admiration for the Colombian people and the people of great courage who run for public office who try to maintain this stability which is critically important. In the midst of all of this, there are over a million displaced people in Colombia. An estimated 1.5 million Colombians have been displaced because of the narco-trafficking wars, and civil conflict that has raged in their society. Thousands upon thousands leave Colombia, their native country, every single year, many coming to the United States, many to Europe and elsewhere to flee the ravaging terrorism that is raging throughout their country. This is the background for what has occurred over the four decades and why I wanted to take a few minutes this afternoon and make a couple of suggestions to the incoming new administration, whether it is an administration under Vice President Gore and Joe Lieberman or one under George Bush and Dick Cheney. It will be important as we look at Latin America, that this be one of the dominant and first issues to be analyzed and discussed and a new formulation put together to help us do a better job in contributing to the solution of this problem. In 1994, it became clear that drug money had penetrated even the highest levels of Colombian society and called into question the legitimacy of the Presidential election of Ernesto Samper. Even today fear of kidnaping and targeted killings by members of Colombia's drug organization has Colombia citizens living in fear for their lives. Colombia's tragic situation was very much on my mind when I voted for the emergency assistance requested this year. I said at that time that I believed it was critically important that we act expeditiously on the assistance package because our credibility was at stake with respect to responding to a genuine crisis in our own hemisphere, one that was directly affecting the lives of our own citizens. We also needed to make good on our pledge to come to the aid of President Pastrana and the people of Colombia in their hour of crisis, a crisis that has profound implications for institutions of democracy in Colombia and throughout this hemisphere. No one I know of asserts that things have dramatically turned around in Colombia since Congress passed the emergency supplemental package. Colombians across the political spectrum struggle each and every day to cope with the escalating violence of warring right-wing and left-wing paramilitary organizations and the existence of narco-trafficking terrorists prepared to coopt all forms of civil society for its own financial gains. The Colombian economy is in distress with the worst recession in modern history causing significant unemployment, hardship among Colombia's middle class and its poorest people. The economic situation in the countryside is deeply troubling. A significant percentage of its rural population is barely able to eke out a living, as I mentioned earlier, with more than 1 million rural Colombians already displaced from their villages from economic necessity or continuing fear of the civil conflict. Not surprisingly, these displaced persons have become the innocent foot soldiers in the ever-expanding illicit coca production that gets processed into cocaine and ultimately finds its way into American schools and neighborhoods across this Nation. As we have seen over the last several weeks and months, these problems have not remained within Colombia's borders, another reason why I felt a certain urgency to talk about this subject matter this afternoon. The nation of Ecuador has felt the effects of conflict in southern Colombia as refugees from the drug war have fled across the border into Ecuadorean territory. Kidnaping for ransom, a weekly occurrence in Colombia, seems to have affected its neighbors. Several weeks ago, 10 foreign nationals working for an oil company in Ecuador were abducted into southern Colombia. Two hostages were able to escape, but the fate of the remaining eight is unknown. Sporadic conflict has occurred in recent days with other neighbors. A Panamanian village was attacked by members of a paramilitary unit and Colombian authorities have lodged complaints about alleged border incursions by Venezuelan forces seeking to eradicate illicit crops close to the Colombian-Venezuelan border. The Brazilian Government has deployed 22,000 troops to the Amazon region in order to strengthen its defenses along its 1,000-mile border with Colombia. Sporadic fighting between Colombia forces and FARC units--that is the left-wing guerrilla forces--have led to unwelcome incursions into Brazilian territory by both organizations. Narco-traffickers have also begun to exploit the Amazon region of Brazil for their own purposes as well. The Colombian problem is spreading. It is now reaching the borders of its neighbors--Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, and Panama. This situation must be high on the agenda of this incoming administration and some new formulation of how to address this is in desperate need. On the assistance front, at the moment the United States is carrying the lion's share of responsibility for trying to help Colombia, I mentioned the $1.3 billion in emergency aid we adopted this year. That has to change. It cannot just be the United States. Colombia's requirements are significant and varied, and there are many areas where European and regional assistance would be extremely beneficial to the Colombian people who are on the front lines of this conflict. Innocent men, women, and children are trapped in the middle of clashes among guerrilla organizations, drug cartels, and Colombia's security and police forces. Government efforts to either protect them or create a climate where alternative gainful employment is available have been insufficient, to put it mildly. U.S. financial assistance is heavily focused on the military component of Colombia's counter narcotic efforts, with lesser amounts available for other programs, such as alternative development programs, the protection of human rights workers, resettlement of displaced persons, and judicial and military reforms. The United States should do more to assist Colombia on the economic front by moving forward in the remaining days of this Congress--now that we are going to have a lame duck session. This Congress should extend NAFTA parity to Colombia and other members of the Andean Trade Preference Agreement. This would tremendously help Colombia work its way out of its current economic recession, by giving a boost to an important domestic industry, in creating more jobs for average Colombians other than in the coca fields producing cocaine. I have enormous respect for the manner in which President Pastrana has quickly and so aggressively taken steps to entice Colombia's largest guerrilla organizations to come to the negotiating tabling following on the heels of his election into office. President Pastrana is a courageous leader, one who has personally been victimized by these kidnapings I mentioned earlier, someone who has shown great courage, great leadership, in trying to bring an end to the civil conflict in his country. So I admire him immensely and have great respect for the efforts he has made. The agenda for these ongoing talks that President Pastrana has pursued was intended to cover the waterfront of economic and social issues that must be addressed if four decades of civil conflict are to be brought to a close in Colombia. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, there has been little tangible progress to date in these peace efforts--not because of any lack of effort on the part of President Pastrana, I might add. I believe Colombia needs more assistance from the international community to help it find a formula for jump-starting this peace process and dealing with the social and economic problems in the country that have produced it. I laud the interest and attention given to the peace efforts by the United Nations Secretary General, but others in a position to be constructive should also become engaged before the process collapses entirely. Moreover, in the final analysis, it is not going to be possible to rid Colombian society of the narco-trafficking cancer while the civil conflict is ongoing and a hindrance to building broad-based support for Colombia's counter narcotics initiatives. U.S. domestic and international support would be more readily sustainable were that the case as well. The international community, by and large, has given only lip service to Colombia's problems and has resisted publicly endorsing Plan Colombia or helping with the peace process. If regional or European political leaders have suggestions for better ways to go about containing illicit drug production in Colombia, and elsewhere, then let them speak up. I think it is critically important that the Organization of American States take a far more active role in assisting with Colombia's current crisis, particularly with respect to enhancing regional support. Among other things, I believe OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria should give serious consideration to convening an emergency summit meeting of the region's leaders before this year's end. The purpose of this summit would be to reach agreement on additional regional steps to ensure that the operations in Colombia do not adversely impact others in the region, either through increased refugee flows or relocated illicit drug operations. European governments, particularly those that have expressed concerns about the social and political fallout of Plan Colombia and the ongoing civil conflict, need to do far more than simply wring their hands. Civil society needs to be strengthened in Colombia in order to ensure that every Colombian's rights are protected. Additional judicial and military reforms must be implemented in order for the rule of law to become the norm and military impunity to cease once and for all. Economic investments, especially in alternative development programs, must be forthcoming if peasants who currently depend on coca cultivation to feed their families are to have meaningful alternative employment. All of these areas are well within the financial resources and expertise of our European allies to undertake, if they are truly concerned about the future of Colombia. For their part, Colombian authorities must undertake a sustained and serious dialog with local mayors, church officials, civic leaders, and affected communities throughout Colombia to hear from them their concerns and fears about aspects of Plan Colombia that may result in thousands more displaced Colombians, particularly in the rural areas of that nation. While aerial eradication of cocoa crops seems the most effective method for attacking illicit production at the source, authorities should also be open to at least considering the possibility of funding other methods of eradication, such as manual eradication utilizing local farmer organizations. Mr. President, to sum up, what I am calling for is a major international commitment to tackle the Colombian crisis. President Clinton has determined that Plan Colombia is worthy of U.S. support; that is in our national interest to do so--and I believe it is--given the impact we are feeling in our own society as a result of the narco- trafficking that occurs here. A bipartisan Congress signed up to that position when it voted to appropriate the $1.3 billion in emergency assistance. Having said that, I do not believe Plan Colombia can ultimately be successfully implemented if only the U.S. and Colombian Governments are participants. Unless U.S.-Colombian authorities come to this view fairly soon and begin a serious effort to regionalize and internationalize this effort, Plan Colombia is going to die on the vine for lack of political support. Time is running out for the people of Colombia. Frankly, time is running short for everyone committed to democracy and democratic values in that country. We must not let international reticence or inertia allow the drug kingpins to win the day.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with particular and personal regret that I deliver these remarks today about the Senator from Florida. In a number of areas and on a range of issues, I, like many of us, have come to rely on Connie Mack's knowledge and good judgment--and his good humor. He has been an outstanding Senator. More importantly, I have come to cherish his friendship and the friendship of his wonderful wife and partner for four decades, Priscilla. Connie Mack is concluding his 12th year of service in the Senate. In that period of time, he has accomplished a great deal for his State and for our country. He has worked diligently and effectively to protect the environment of his State. He stood against drilling off Florida's vast and majestic shoreline. He has promoted the restoration of the Florida Everglades, one of our Nation's premier national treasures. Time and time again, in ways large and small, Connie Mack has acted to safeguard his State's rare and fragile natural beauty. For this generation, and for generations to come, the name of Connie Mack will mean a great deal--to the citizens of Florida and people throughout the country--if for no other reason than for that contribution. Perhaps the most profound contribution, however, of this very warm and gracious colleague of ours is the contribution he has made to our Nation in the area of cancer awareness and medical research. In these areas, it can be said, I believe without any hesitation, that no one has done a greater service to his fellow Americans in these last number of years than Connie and Priscilla Mack. Connie and Priscilla know through hard personal experience the terrible toll that cancer and disease can take on individuals and families. They know as well as anyone that early detection of cancer is the first and best weapon in the battle to save lives. That is why they have made early detection of cancer not just a concern, but a cause. By educating others about the importance of early detection, by spreading awareness that it is an easy, fast, and safe way to save lives, they have played a very critical role in helping countless Americans avoid the full devastation of this disease. I daresay, among those tens of thousands of American men and women who every year conquer cancer because they detected it early, a great many of them owe a debt of thanks to Connie and Priscilla Mack. Together, they have received numerous honors and awards, including: the National Coalition for Cancer Research Lifetime Achievement Award; the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship Ribbon of Hope Award; the American Cancer Society's Courage Award; and Susan Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's Betty Ford Award. But Senator Mack has not been satisfied just with promoting early detection. He has worked for a day when early detection of cancer and other diseases will no longer be necessary because they will no longer exist. He has worked diligently and successfully to increase our Nation's investment in medical research. He understands that research can provide answers and ultimately cures for many of the ailments that continue to plague humankind. Maybe not today, but one day. And years from now, when--we hope--cures will be found, America and the world will reflect with gratitude on those who dared to envision a better future by supporting the basic research from which those cures derived. And among those whom future generations will thank, I believe that few will be thanked more than the Senator from Florida, Connie Mack. In addition to witnessing his work on the environment and health, I have had the pleasure to serve with Senator Mack on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. There he brought his vast experience as a community banker to bear on the critical financial services issues of the day. And today our Nation's policies in the area of financial services bear the imprint of his experience and judgment. Connie and I also served together for a time on the Foreign Relations Committee. There, too, he distinguished himself by his thoughtful, courteous manner. And while we did not always agree--in fact, we used to have some good, healthy arguments on American-Cuban policies--I never faced a more diligent or worthy opponent than Connie Mack. I always respected his positions and the people he represented in those debates. He is a worthy ally and opponent. I shall miss him. For me, Connie Mack has been not only a colleague. He has been a gifted, accomplished leader. He has been a gentleman. And he has been a friend. He has graced this institution with civility and reason. He and Priscilla will be sorely missed. I look forward to many years of continued friendship.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the last colleague I want to spend a few minutes talking about is one we have all come to know and appreciate for his valued service in the Senate and his valued service to this country over many, many years. Pat Moynihan is a special Senator and a special individual. It is exceedingly difficult to summarize in words what this remarkable man has meant to the Senate, what he has meant to our Nation, and, indeed-- and this is no exaggeration--what he has meant to the world in which we live. As a soldier, a teacher, an author, an ambassador, and, over the past number of years, a Senator, very few have done so much so well. Few have put so much learning and such deep understanding to the service of the common good. If America is the world's indispensable nation, it can be said that Patrick Moynihan is one of America's indispensable leaders. He is the only American ever to serve in four successive Presidential administrations. Two of those administrations were headed by Republican presidents and two by Democrats--reflecting a bipartisan appreciation of this man's rare gifts of insight and effective action. Pat Moynihan served as a leading domestic policy advisor under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Later he would be selected by President Nixon to serve as United States Ambassador to India, and by President Ford to serve as our Nation's representative to the United Nations. Pat Moynihan has written or edited some eighteen books. The subjects of those books reflect the extraordinary range of his intellect--from poverty, race, education and urban policy to welfare, arms control, government secrecy, and international law. The list goes on. He has received over sixty honorary degrees from institutions of higher learning all across the globe. He has received countless awards which, like his writings and his honorary degrees, speak to his vast curiosity and accomplishment. Among these awards are: the American Political Science Association's Hubert Humphrey Award for ``notable public service by a political scientist''; the International League of Human Rights Award; the John LaFarge Award for Interracial Justice; the Agency Seal Medallion of the Central Intelligence Agency for ``outstanding accomplishments . . . with full knowledge that his achievements would never received public recognition''; the Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture from the American Institute of Architects; the Thomas Jefferson Medal from the American Philosophical Society for Distinguished Achievement in the Arts or Humanities; and the Heinz Award in Public Policy for ``having been a distinct and unique voice in this century--independent in his convictions, a scholar, teacher, statesman, and politician, skilled in the art of the possible.'' Earlier this year, the United States Courthouse on Pearl Street in New York City was named after the senior Senator from New York. It is a fitting and appropriate honor. No one has done more than he to make our Nation's public buildings and public spaces reflect the high ideals and common purposes of America's citizenry. For four decades he has labored to transform Pennsylvania Avenue in our Nation's capital. More than anyone else, he is responsible for reviving this majestic boulevard--in fulfillment of L'Enfant's noble vision of a ``grand axis . . . symbolizing at once the separation of powers and the fundamental unity in the American government.'' Today, his guiding hand can be seen in even a cursory glance down that avenue--in the Navy Memorial, Pershing Park, the Reagan Building, and Ariel Rios--not to mention neighboring masterpieces such as Union Station and the Thurgood Marshall Building. Thomas Jefferson once said that ``Design activity and political thought are indivisible.'' The sentiments behind those words are not just shared by Pat Moynihan. They have functioned as a kind of code of conduct in his careful approach to developing America's public places. And perhaps no American since Jefferson himself has had a more profound impact on the look and feel of those places than the man to whom I pay tribute today. But he has not only worked to enshrine our ideals in our public places. He has ennobled our public discourse, and enhanced life for all Americans. In so many areas he has made a deep and lasting contribution. He has worked to protect our natural treasures, as well as our man-made ones. He has been a leader--and often a visionary--in supporting cleaner, safer, faster modes of transportation. He has fought a long and sometimes lonely battle for humane and effective welfare policy. He has rung a warning bell to call upon our Nation to reform retirement programs for future generations. And always, always, he has worked to promote peace and freedom throughout the world. I had the honor of serving with Senator Moynihan on the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. Senator Bennett and I chaired that Committee--and I think I can speak for both he and I in saying that no one did more to focus the Senate and the nation's attention on the urgent need to address the Y2K problem than the senior Senator from New York. In fact, I distinctly recall a ``Dear Colleague'' letter he sent to every Senator several years ago, in which he warned about a looming technological crisis then known to only a handful of people, most of them computer scientists. It was typical Pat Moynihan: erudite, prescient, compelling. Pat Moynihan knows the good that government can accomplish when its leaders act with vision, courage, and cooperation. But he also knows what government cannot, and should not, do or try to do. He told us years ago, for instance, that there is no substitute for a strong family. He understands only too well the sentiments expressed by the poet William Butler Yeats: Parnell came down the road, he said to a cheering man: Ireland will get her freedom and you will break stone. Like Yeats, Pat Moynihan knows that freedom achieved is a victory in and of itself. And while we may be cheering, we have to go back to the drudgery of day-to-day life. But freedom and democracy are to be cheered. The Senate will not see another like Pat Moynihan for some time because there has been no one like him. There has been no one like him with whom I have had the privilege and pleasure of serving. He has done a remarkable job for this Nation. He has made this Senate a better institution because of his presence here. We will miss him and his good wife, Liz, who has done so much in her own right. We wish them the very best as they begin this new chapter of their extraordinary lives. The Good Lord is not done with Pat Moynihan yet. All of us expect great things coming from this very distinguished man. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to talk about three colleagues that are retiring. There are five, actually, but I will get to them later. I don't want to do it all at once tonight. I will speak about three of them: Senators Richard Bryan, Bob Kerrey, and Frank Lautenberg. Later I will talk about Connie Mack and Senator Pat Moynihan, who have also made decisions to retire from the Senate. They will be casting their last votes as Members of the Senate in the next three days. I want to take a few minutes in these remaining hours to pay tribute to these three individuals who will be leaving the Congress at the end of this session. All three of these individuals have served with great distinction in this body. All have made a mark on our Nation for which this country will be grateful for generations to come. All will be missed by those of us who will remain in this body, not to mention by the people of their respective States and people across this country. Let me first speak, if I may, about my good friend Dick Bryan of Nevada. Few, if any, of our colleagues have come to this institution having already achieved as much distinction in public service as Dick Bryan. Long before he set foot on the floor of this U.S. Senate, he had accomplished a great deal for the people of his beloved State of Nevada. He is the first person in the history of that State to have served as Attorney General, Governor, and then U.S. Senator. Senator Bryan did not come to the Senate to sit on passed laurels and achievements. He did what he has done in every position of public trust he has ever held, even going back to his term as the president of his eighth great class at Park Elementary School; he went to work on behalf of the people he was elected to represent. He went to work for consumers. As the former chairman of the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, Senator Bryan successfully fought to have airbags installed in all automobiles sold in the United States. Some viewed this as a highly risky cause to champion as a politician--promoting airbags. It is thought that a Senator should avoid at all costs having his or her name associated with something like airbags. But Senator Bryan was not deterred. And today, thanks to him, hundreds of lives are saved every year by a feature that is now standard issue in American automobiles. Every day, when tens of millions of Americans drive to work, school, or the store, they can thank Dick Bryan for making sure that their trip will be a safer one than it otherwise would have been. Senator Bryan also worked with a large coalition of children's advocates to enact new protections for Internet privacy. He led the fight to strengthen the laws governing the credit reporting industry, which is so crucial to the ability of virtually every American to obtain a home, a car, and a loan for any other modern necessity. And he took the lead in crafting legislation to reduce telemarketing fraud, which preys on so many elderly and other vulnerable citizens. Aside from his record as a consumer advocate, Dick Bryan is perhaps best known for his work on behalf of his state and its residents. We are all familiar with the tenacity with which he and his colleague Senator Reid have worked to prevent the Nevada Test Site at Yucca Mountain from being designated as an interim storage facility for the nation's nuclear waste. I have myself known the unique pleasure of being visited by Senator Bryan and Senator Reid about this matter. I have also admired Senator Bryan's efforts to protect Nevada's lands, particularly in the southern part of the state. Because of his efforts, all proceeds from the sale of lands in that part of the state must be spent within the state. That's a plan that no other state enjoys, and it is a tribute to Dick Bryan's legislative skills. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the important work that Senator Bryan has performed as a member of the Senate Ethics Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. These are important and sensitive committees on which to serve. It is a reflection of the high esteem in which he is held by his colleagues that he served on these committees--and did so, I might add, with discretion and with distinction. In sum, Mr. President, Richard Bryan has spent his two terms in the Senate working hard and working effectively--for consumers, for his constituents, for a stronger intelligence-gathering function by the United States, and for a stronger United States Senate. He has been an outstanding leader and a good friend. We wish him, his wife Bonnie, their children and grandchildren well as they begin the next phase of their life together.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in a few short days, Senator Kerrey will also be among our five colleagues bringing to an end their tenure in here in the Senate. I think all of us understand his decision and respect it, but I think we regret it. Like Senator Bryan, Senator Kerrey is a former governor of his state. Like him, he has served in the Senate for two terms. And like Senator Bryan, Senator Kerrey has left a lasting mark on this institution, on his state, and on our country. The outlines of this remarkable man's resume are known to many of us. Bob Kerrey served with distinction in the Navy, and today is the only Member of Congress to have earned a Medal of Honor for his heroism in combat duty during the Vietnam war. He became a successful businessman in Omaha. He was elected Governor of Nebraska in 1982. It was a time when few Democrats were running for--much less winning--state-wide offices, particularly in his part of the country. And it was a time when our entire country was mired in a recession, particularly in Nebraska and other farm states, which were suffering through the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. As Governor, Bob Kerrey met the challenge of eliminating a serious budget deficit. In fact, he balanced his state's budget every year, helping to turn that deficit into a surplus. He also initiated innovative reforms in welfare, education, job training, and environmental protection. In the opinion of his constituents and many others, Bob Kerrey was proving himself to be an outstanding public servant. He established himself as someone willing to make tough decisions. He showed that he has an ability to see ``around the corner'' and think ``outside the box'' by initiating thoughtful, creative, and effective policies for the benefit of the people of his beloved state of Nebraska. But it can be said that public service has always needed Bob Kerrey more than Bob Kerrey has needed public service. He has never been one to assume that his gifts of leadership and his curiosity about life's meaning and purpose can only be satisfied by holding elected office. Despite his impressive record as Governor, and despite his strong public approval ratings, he declined to run for re-election and took leave of public life. He headed to southern California, where he taught a course on the Vietnam war to college students--readily admitting that one of the chief reasons for accepting that position was to wait out the worst months of the Nebraska winter on a warm beach. Two years later, the people of Nebraska sent him to the United States Senate--to the good fortune not only of his constituents, but of his new colleagues and the American people. As a member of the Finance Committee, Agriculture Committee, Appropriations Committee, and Select Committee on Intelligence, he worked diligently to strengthen family farmers, small businesses, and our nation's vital intelligence- gathering agencies. He also dedicated himself to perhaps the most important and intractable domestic policy question facing our nation: entitlement reform. He chaired the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform--which has produced what many regard as the definitive analysis of the entitlement system. He served on the National Commission on the Future of Medicare, proposing thoughtful ideas for health care reform. He also co-chaired the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, where he developed some of the most sweeping reforms of IRS operations ever instituted. Not all of Senator Kerrey's ideas on entitlement reform have been adopted or even embraced. But each and every one of them has merited the careful consideration of our colleagues and of the country as a whole. That in itself is the great tribute to the work of this fine Senator. Like a sentry on the watch, his words of caution and warning will reverberate through the Halls of Congress long after his departure. He has persistently shone a light on the looming and inescapable demographic fact that retirees are growing in numbers that will soon overwhelm our present ability to sustain them under the umbrella of Social Security and Medicare. He has done so not with the shrill self-righteousness that some bring to a cause about which they feel great passion. He has done so with conviction, humor, and humility. For his words of warning, and for the way in which he has uttered them, this body and our nation owe him a debt of gratitude. Now he prepares to move on to academia, where he will become president of New School University in New York City. I come from a family of educators, and when Bob told me of his decision, my first reaction was: are you sure that you want to do this? If you think sitting through a markup or a hearing can be tedious, just wait until that first faculty meeting. And wait until you get a visit from an orange-haired undergraduate seeking special credit for his graffiti art. That will put your patience and problem-solving skills to the test. But Bob will not be deterred. And I suspect that, as he has done throughout his career, he will shape his office and place more than it will shape him. He will bring his rare gifts of leadership to the higher education students and faculty with whom he will come in touch. I know I am joined by all of my colleagues in wishing him well, and I look forward to many more years of his friendship and his leadership. I don't believe America is through with Bob Kerrey yet.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes this evening to talk about a person who is a colleague in the sense that I have worked with him for 25 years in my office in Connecticut. He has recently retired. I will also discuss three colleagues here in the U.S. Senate who have announced their retirement. As we, hopefully, arrive at the closing of this session, I want to take a couple of moments to share my thoughts about these three colleagues. I will speak about two other colleagues tomorrow or the next day, if I can, so as not to consume too much time this evening because colleagues may want to be heard on other matters.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. First, I want to pay tribute to a man that has literally been like a father, brother, and uncle to me, and a close confidant for a quarter of a century. I affectionately call him ``the coach.'' Stanley Israelite has been with me in my office from the very first day in January of 1975 when I was sworn into the House of Representatives, until just months ago when, at age 75, he retired from the service of the U.S. Senate and service to me as a Member of the House and the Senate. There are many words to describe Stanley Israelite and the many roles in my life and the lives of countless others in Connecticut and the country that he has served as a friend, counselor, trusted advisor, and faithful public servant. While these words can describe what he has been, there are really no words to describe what he has meant, particularly to me and to literally hundreds of others who have been blessed to know him and have been affected by the work he has performed on their behalf. It is equally the case that there are no words to express my true feelings of deep gratitude for Stanley's service and my personal sadness that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, in a recent edition of the New London Day, a local paper in Connecticut, the headline read ``Israelite Enjoys Retirement for Day, Then Joins NCDC''--the Norwich Community Development Corporation. That one headline fairly well sums up Stanley's remarkable life of service. For almost 75 years, he has led a life of tireless devotion to the things that endure in this life: faith, family, compassion for the less fortunate, integrity, and great humility. While many think of him as a quintessential public servant, Stanley Israelite's roots actually lie in the world of small business. His first occupation, after serving in the U.S. military, was helping to run his father's jewelry store in Norwich, Connecticut. He would later serve as an officer of the Norwich Chamber of Commerce and then became director of it. In fact, he was director when he joined me as a freshman member of the House. Subsequently, he was elected as a member of the City Council in his beloved hometown of Norwich, Connecticut, and was chosen to serve as commissioner to the Norwich Department of Public Utilities. In his ``spare time,'' he was corporator of the William W. Backus Hospital in Norwich, the former Norwich Savings Society, and the Norwich Free Academy, one of the oldest, if not the oldest, public high schools in America. In the 1970s, he served as head of the Norwich Community Development Corporation. In that role, he oversaw the establishment of the Norwich Industrial Park. I know a lot of industrial parks built today are rather commonplace, but this was one of the first and one of the most unique in the State of Connecticut and across the country. This facility embodies Stanley's vision of a thriving economic community in southeastern Connecticut, and he created it while maintaining the wonderful topography and environmental integrity of that part of the city of Norwich. It represents, in many ways--in stone, metal, glass, and the environment that surrounds it--the deep commitment of this remarkable man to make life better for those around him. As one former State Senator recently said of Stanley's work on the Norwich Industrial Park, ``It's high time we name the park after him.'' I second that thought. For the past 25 years, I have had the great privilege of knowing Stanley as a member of my staff. He served as my State director and senior advisor for a quarter century. But what truly distinguished Stanley was not the title that he held in my office, but his rock-solid sense of purpose. Stanley was with me on the very first day that I was sworn in as a new Member of Congress. Every single day, 7 days a week, I had at least one conversation with Stanley Israelite. I never made an important decision--very few decisions at all--without discussing them with Stanley and getting his solid advice as to how we ought to proceed. Early in my very first term, I remember being out with Stanley for dinner one night. In talking about the job and how the job ought to be done, he listened to me patiently, as he oftentimes did, go on at some length about the work and the projects we wanted to be involved in, the major issues affecting Electric Boat and all these important institutions in my congressional district. After I went on for some time, I turned to Stanley and asked him what he thought. I can almost hear him exactly. He said, ``I am going to tell you one thing about this job.'' He paused and he just said, ``Never forget the people.'' With those words, Stanley Israelite embarked on a 25-year career with me, on a path and a journey that has been a joy every single day. I am constantly reminded by Stanley and by his words and deeds that our job is to never forget the people. For 25 years, he has been a champion of those who too often are ignored, the underdogs, the ill, the elderly, the frail--those who didn't have anybody to speak for them. For Stanley, every person does count. No matter is too small for his attention. For him, a constituent's problem became his problem. Words like ``I can't help you,'' ``try another office,'' ``later,'' or ``no,'' simply were not in Stanley's vocabulary. In November of 1995, U.S. News and World Report published what they call their ``Portraits of 12 Indispensable Americans.'' I am proud to tell you today that one of those 12 indispensable Americans was the man I speak about this evening, Stanley Israelite. I ask unanimous consent that that profile of Stanley Israelite contained in the publication of U.S. News and World Report be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Conference report. It has taken some time to reach an agreement satisfactory to all interested parties, but I believe that the bill before us goes a long way toward advancing American interests abroad. Furthermore, this bill contains important provisions to help poor and vulnerable world citizens. First of all, I am especially pleased that appropriators have agreed to fully fund the President's debt relief package for third world countries, and that language has been included to allow the International Monetary Fund to release $800 million from the sale of gold reserves so that the interest earned on the proceeds can be put to work providing debt forgiveness to heavily indebted poor nations in Africa and parts of Latin America. The burden of external debt has become a major impediment to economic development and poverty reduction in many of the world's poorest countries--a reality I have witnessed first-hand throughout my travels in Latin America. Until recently, the United States government and other creditors sought to address this problem by rescheduling loans, and in some cases, providing limited debt reduction. Despite such efforts, the cumulative debt of many of the poorest countries has continued to grow beyond their ability to repay, and thus, developing economies are struggling. And, even worse, it is the most vulnerable citizens in these fledgling democracies that are suffering from this debt. When already poor governments are investing vast amounts of their budgets in debt maintenance, little remains for social services for those most in need. As a result, women, children, and the poor end up suffering and living in want. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have supported efforts to target assistance for programs designed to address the special needs and concerns of the poor, and I am grateful that we have had some success in this undertaking. United States assistance programs, together with other international aid efforts, have made basic human necessities available to many of those most in need. However, I believe that the debt reduction initiatives included in the Foreign Operations bill today build upon that success, and hope that they will dramatically increase the quality of life for citizens in indebted countries. We still have a long way to go to ensure that all people live free of hunger and want, but I think that today we are taking a dramatic leap forward toward that end. I am also pleased with the increase in funding for children's health programs included in this bill. This conference report provides $963 million for child survival and disease programs, $413 million more than the administration requested. Besides providing funding of $110 million for UNICEF, this money will be used for immunization programs, prenatal care, polio eradication, combating illegal trafficking in women and children, and the establishment of orphanages for displaced children. My colleagues know of my deep commitment to child welfare both at home and abroad. Indeed, too often children are overlooked because they do not vote and have no voice in our political system. I am extremely happy that children's welfare programs have been so generously funded in this bill, and hope that this represents a trend that will continue in the years to come. Finally, I would like to comment on the family planning provisions in the bill. I believe the problem of overpopulation is an extremely important issue and population stabilization is crucial to the well- being of the planet. Overpopulation threatens to exert tremendous social, ecological, medical, and economic hardship on much of the world, and we must take strong action to limit it. For families living under the conditions that exist in many developing nations, family planning is critical. Without it, mothers have great difficulty spacing their births and limiting the number of children they bear and, as a result, they suffer the tremendous physical stress of repeated childbirth--often without the aid of physicians or midwives. Furthermore, women are not the only ones who suffer in these cases; their children suffer too. Children in large families find themselves competing for food with other siblings. As a result, they suffer from higher incidents of malnutrition and hunger. Under the compromise included in the conference report, family planning groups abroad can finally use their own money to provide family planning services, although the restriction on federal funding of abortions continues. In addition, Congress has boosted the general funding available for international family planning from $370 million to $425 million which will be available for expenditure after February 15, 2001. By helping women avoid pregnancy before conception, this funding will help mothers in developing countries better plan their child rearing, and will reduce the number of abortions performed annually. Moreover, it will ensure that every child born is a wanted child and will reduce the number of children born to parents who do not have the resources to care for them. I believe that this is a good bill. It helps those who need it most, and provides funding for our international priorities. It includes money to help end the devastation of AIDS in Africa, assists women, children, and the poor, and allows governments to finally get out of the shadow of crushing debt that both economic circumstance and mismanagement caused to be accrued. On balance, the programs funded in this appropriations bill advance America's foreign policy and national security interests. In short, it is good for the people of the world, and the people of America. When we invest pro-actively in global stability we encourage peace and commerce, and everybody wins. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to another of our retiring colleagues, Senator Lautenberg. Frank Lautenberg is a remarkable man in a great many respects. He has lived the American dream, and devoted his life in public service to making the American dream alive and available to each and every American--regardless of race, creed, or station in life. He has made a lasting and indelible mark on the laws of our nation--and in the process made our nation a better place for all. The son of immigrants, Frank was born in Paterson, New Jersey. His family moved some twelve times during his boyhood in search of work. His father spent most of his time laboring in the silk mills of Paterson. Frank served in World War Two in the European theater. He attended Columbia University on the G.I. bill. After graduating from Columbia, he and two boyhood friends began a business. As chairman and CEO, it grew to become one of the largest computer services companies in the world. Frank became a very successful man financially. The time came when he decided to give something back to the country that had given him and his family so very much. For the past 18 years in the Senate, that is exactly what Frank Lautenberg has done. Frank is one of those rare people who rises to a high place in life and never forgets where he came from. He did not pull up the ladder of opportunity once he had climbed it. He fought to keep it in place and make it stronger for those who came after him. He has always, I think, seen a bit of himself in the faces of the children and working people whom he has served. It so happens that one of America's finest poets, William Carlos Williams also called Paterson, NJ his home. Williams was a doctor. He made house calls, carrying his black medical bag up and down the stairs of Paterson's tenements. He wrote poems at night, or scratched them out during brief intervals of his busy days tending to the sick and scared. He wrote once that there are ``No ideas but in things''. Frank Lautenberg must intuitively graps the meaning of Williams poetry. For him, the noble ideas that have motivated his public service have taken shape in the things he had done--in the resources he has brought home to the people of his state, and in the laws he has written on behalf of all Americans. In his eighteen years as a United States Senator, Frank Lautenberg has amassed a remarkable record of public achievement. There are few areas of environmental, transportation, budget, and anti-crime policy that have not benefited from his careful mind and strong hand. On the environment, Frank helped write landmark legislation to cleanse our air, provide safer drinking water, and clean up more toxic waste sites. He authored measure to make America's beaches cleaner, and to ban the ocean dumping of sewage. He has shaped our nation's transportation policy. Frank understands as few others do that our nation can only grow and prosper to the degree that it is able to move people, goods, and services safely and efficiently. Along with Senator Moynihan and others, his leadership has been instrumental in ensuring some modicum of balance in our funding for mass transit as opposed to roads and highways. He has been a leader in the ongoing effort to support Amtrak and the important cause of commuter and intercity passenger rail service, which can do so much to reduce traffic congestion and keep our air clean. And no one has done more to promote transportation safety, on the road as well as in the air. Frank Lautenberg authored the law to establish 21 as the legal drinking age, and to ban smoking on airplanes. And he is responsible more than anyone else for the landmark provision in this year's transportation appropriations bill lowering the legal standard for intoxication to .08 percent blood alcohol content. The drinking age law alone as saved an estimated 12,000 lives since its enactment in 1984. It's estimated that his ``.08'' measure will save an additional 600 lives each year in this country. Frank Lautenberg also understood that we must do more to protect law- abiding citizens from the scourge of gun violence. He authored the bill to close the gun-show loophole. He has fought for child-proof handguns. And his support for measures like the Brady bill was instrumental in bringing about a nationwide reduction in gun violence over the past 7 years. Lastly, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, Frank has played a valuable role in bringing about an end to budget deficits and putting our nation on the path to paying off our national debt. He has also worked to strengthen the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. I said a while ago that Frank Lautenberg proved to be a very successful businessman. He accumulated great financial wealth. No one would have faulted him if he just retired, having made that achievement and contribution for the private sector. I think all of us, regardless of party and political persuasion, admire people who want to give something back and who are willing to jump into this arena of public life, running the risks that we all do when we place our name on ballots all cross this country. The fact that Frank Lautenberg decided at the end of his private life to become a public citizen and make a significant contribution to his country stands as a wonderful model for others who have done well to follow and when they want to give something back. Not everyone runs for public office, nor should they, but there are ways in which people can make contributions every day to improve the quality of life for people. Frank Lautenberg is a living embodiment of that concept and that principle. The colleagues I have talked about, the wonderful colleagues who have served so admirably and so well, Dick Bryan, Bob Kerrey, Frank Lautenberg, and my friend, Stan Israelite, are examples of public servants who I will miss terribly every day. These are good Americans who have made a difference in the lives of all of us as citizens in this country. I will find time to talk about my good friends, Connie Mack and Pat Moynihan, but I see my colleagues on the floor. I thank them for their indulgence. I talked a little longer than I anticipated. I thank the Senators for their patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleagues for unanimously agreeing to pass S. 2812, a bill introduced earlier this year by Senator hatch and myself to amend the Immigration and nationality Act to eliminate a barrier that has prevented persons with certain mental disabilities from becoming United States citizens. By passing this bill today, Congress will make our immigration policy more fair and more humane. The bill we will pass today will not dramatically change or improve our immigration policies--that work remains to be done--but this bill will make a big difference in the lives of a few American families-- families like the Dowds, the Costas, the Wickers, and the Teixlers of Connecticut. Back in July, I explained why we need to pass this legislation. I told a story about a young man named Mathieu. Mathieu's family--his mother, his father, and his sister--have all become naturalized U.S. citizens. But Mathieu has not been allowed to become a citizen because he's a 23-year-old autistic man who cannot swear an oath of loyalty to the United States, which is required as part of the naturalization process. His naturalization request has been in limbo since November of 1996 because Mathieu could not understand some of the questions he was asked by the INS agent processing his application for citizenship. For years Mathieu's mother has lived in fear that her most vulnerable child could be removed from the country and sent to a nation that he hardly knows, and where he has no family or friends. As I explained in July, Mathieu's mother--again, a United States citizen--wants what every American in her position would want. She wants to know that all of her children, including her most vulnerable child, will have the protections of citizenship. Mathieu's life is here. His friends and caregivers are here. His family is here. Mathieu's place is here, and now, with the passage of this bill, Mathieu's mother can rest easy because Mathieu can join the rest of his family as a U.S. citizen. This legislation has not been the subject of great debate, but it is an important correction for us to make. I thank Catherine Cushman, and attorney who works for the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, for bringing this issue to my attention. I also thank Catholic Charities, USA for their guidance and expertise on this matter. Finally, I thank Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine, Senator Feingold, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Kohl for their support of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again about the Agriculture appropriations conference report, and specifically to comment on two major provisions that cause me grave concern. One relates to several aspects of U.S.-Cuba policy, and the other to the reimportation of prescription drugs from abroad. I spoke on October 6, when the language first became public, at some length about my opposition to the Cuba provisions in the conference report. At that time, I also expressed support for other provisions of this legislation that dramatically loosen the licensing and financing restrictions on sales of food and medicine to other countries that have been designated as terrorist states--North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Libya. I continue to find it appalling that Cuba has been singled out for more restrictive treatment than the other countries I have just mentioned, who are far more of a potential threat to U.S. foreign policy and national security interests than Cuba has ever been. I would call my colleagues' attention to a remarkable photo that appeared on the cover of the the New York Times on October 11. This photo showed President Clinton meeting with high ranking North Korean General Jo Myong-Nok--the first official meeting of its kind in more than 50 years. The purpose of the general's visit to Washington was to begin a dialogue on ways to enhance relations between our two countries. Secretary Albright has announced she will visit North Korea in the next several weeks. And I won't be surprised if President Clinton also decided to go there before leaving office. How the world has changed. Let me be clear. I am not opposed to diplomatic efforts to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. But I think it is fair to say that North Korea, with its missile programs and hostile government, represents a much greater threat to the United States than Cuba. Cuba no longer seeks to export revolution to its neighbors and is no longer financed by the Soviet Union. Yet there have been no high level meetings of Cuban and American officials held to explore the possibility of improving relations between two close neighbors. In fact, it has been quite the opposite--no one above the rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary in our government can visit Havana or conduct discussions with Cuban officials about such matters. To say that our policy is incredibly skewed when it comes to matters related to Cuba is an understatement. Emotions and raw domestic politics prevent us from having normal discourse with a small island 90 miles off our coast while, at the same time, we are trying to normalize relations with communist North Korea. A contradiction? I think so. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. By singling out Cuba for highly restrictive treatment, while throwing the door wide open for countries like Iran and Sudan, we are casting ourselves as hypocrites in the realm of foreign policy, and we are arbitrarily rewarding one oppressive regime while castigating another. American farmers will not be deceived for very long by supporters of this language who are assuring them that they will indeed be able to sell their crops in Cuban markets. It will quickly become apparent the first time they try to put together a deal that the complexity of the law makes it virtually impossible to complete a sale to that country. Furthermore, the codification of existing travel restrictions on Americans wishing to travel to Cuba is shameful and irresponsible. By passing this bill, we take away the administration's discretion to grant licenses on a case-by-case basis in circumstances that do not fall into the now codified categories of permissible travel, significantly harming our ability to work to change Cuban society. These restrictions are unfair, hypocritical, and inexplicable to average Americans who believe that their right to travel is a fundamental freedom enshrined in the Constitution. I also take issue with another major provision that was jammed into this legislation by the Republican leadership--I am speaking of a provision which will allow the reimportation of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries back into the United States. This provision is of concern for several reasons, not the least of which is that it ignores the larger question of whether Congress is going to give all seniors an affordable, reliable drug benefit through Medicare. This provision is far from a comprehensive solution to the very real problem millions of seniors face all over the country in affording their medicines. It is my hope that the enactment of this legislation does not distract us from working toward the goal of providing all seniors with real Medicare drug coverage. Having laid out my objections, I must state that I am prepared to vote for this bill because it contains funding for many programs that are beneficial to American families and American farmers. These provisions include financial relief for hard hit farmers who have suffered economic and natural disasters, funding for the Women, Infants, and Children Program for school lunches, and food stamps for our less fortunate. These are all vital programs and deserve the support of this body. The situation we find ourselves in today speaks volumes about those who would slip objectionable language into a bill as important as this one and put in jeopardy its passage. Fortunately, the legislative process does not end with the passage of a single bill. Next year I will be back in this Chamber seeking to put our relations with the Cuban people on the same footing as those of other peoples around the world, and to restore every American's right to travel freely--even to Cuba if they so choose. I will also be working to enact truly meaningful legislation that will ensure that prescription drugs are available and affordable for every American family. These issues are not going to go away with the adjournment of this Congress and in time, reason will prevail on these matters. The American people will demand it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to those who have come to the Senate floor to pay tribute to Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan. Those of us who knew and admired Governor Carnahan share a profound sense of loss at the news of his untimely death and the deaths of his son Randy and longtime aide Chris Sifford in a plane crash on Monday night. I had the pleasure to meet Mel Carnahan on several occasions in recent years. I knew him as a good man, as someone who spoke passionately and cared deeply about the people of his State, especially its children. He was a dedicated and talented public servant who never wavered in his belief that public service is a noble calling. Few if any would question that Mel Carnahan's heart was with the working people of his State. In his first year as Governor, he called for a tax increase to fund the State's public schools. Allies and opponents alike said he was sealing his fate as a one-term Governor. The voters saw his decision for what it was: an act of political courage. They reelected him in a landslide. In addition to work on behalf of the children of Missouri, he fought for better health and safety standards for seniors in nursing homes. He championed tough measures to fight crime. He brought about sensible welfare reform. And he successfully streamlined his State's government, redirecting hundreds of millions of dollars for job creation, education, and law enforcement. The Democratic leader said earlier this week that Governor Carnahan was a man of such talent and insight that he would have succeeded in any field which he chose. Anyone who knew this man would, I believe, have to agree with that view; that he chose the field of public service and brought credit and esteem to a profession that is all too often criticized. It brought a better life for millions of Americans who reaped the harvest of his tireless efforts on their behalf. I extend my deepest sympathies to the Governor's wife Jean, their family, the family of Chris Sifford, and the people of the State of Missouri.