Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Kennedy and Jeffords in introducing the ``Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000,'' legislation that offers much-needed safeguards for consumers who purchase prescription drugs over the Internet. This legislation will, for the first time, require online sellers of pharmaceuticals to comply with the same basic standards as traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies and will create additional enforcement tools so that states and federal agencies can take effective action against online pharmacies that endanger the public safety. As with most of the recent advances in technology over the past decade, the ability to shop over the Internet has brought with it new benefits, as well as new worries. While many of us applaud the advantages that e-commerce has provided, when it comes to the purchase of products with a direct and immediate impact on health and safety-- such as prescription drugs--we must seriously consider the risks that come with convenience. While some online pharmacies have adopted all the safeguards of traditional pharmacies, such as hiring licensed pharmacists and requiring valid prescriptions before dispensing drugs, increasingly, unscrupulous companies have used the anonymity of cyberspace to hide from federal and state safety regulations, placing the health of their customers at serious risk. These unethical companies can easily take advantage of the fact that, as consumers, we may leave our common sense behind when we turn on our computers. Too often, we assume that simply because a business has a website, it must be legitimate. Consequently, we've received hundreds of reports of Internet pharmacies selling powerful prescription drugs to consumers simply on the basis of answers to a health questionnaire--without the patient ever setting foot in a doctor's office. This practice, which has been condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association, places patients at serious risk for misdiagnoses and dangerous drug interactions. Perhaps even more frightening is that some Internet sellers are dispensing contaminated or counterfeit drugs to their unsuspecting customers. And, unfortunately, the ease with which websites can be created and removed and the difficulty regulators have in determining the identity of the corporations behind the websites create obstacles to states and federal agencies trying to shut down unlawful sellers. This legislation would require online sellers of prescription drugs to dispense medications only with valid prescriptions, to notify state boards of pharmacy in each state in which they operate of the establishment of their service, and to provide full disclosure of the address and telephone number of the business's headquarters on their website. Under this bill, Internet sellers who do not adhere to these basic standards will risk serious legal sanctions, including permanent prohibition from conducting further business and the freezing of assets. While we should ensure that legitimate pharmacies can continue to serve their customers on the information superhighway, we need to act immediately to derail those who would use the Internet in unsafe or illicit ways. The legislation we introduce today will give state and federal agencies the appropriate authority to protect American consumers from unscrupulous Internet sellers. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Kennedy and Jeffords in introducing the ``Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000,'' legislation that offers much-needed safeguards for consumers who purchase prescription drugs over the Internet. This legislation will, for the first time, require online sellers of pharmaceuticals to comply with the same basic standards as traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies and will create additional enforcement tools so that states and federal agencies can take effective action against online pharmacies that endanger the public safety. As with most of the recent advances in technology over the past decade, the ability to shop over the Internet has brought with it new benefits, as well as new worries. While many of us applaud the advantages that e-commerce has provided, when it comes to the purchase of products with a direct and immediate impact on health and safety-- such as prescription drugs--we must seriously consider the risks that come with convenience. While some online pharmacies have adopted all the safeguards of traditional pharmacies, such as hiring licensed pharmacists and requiring valid prescriptions before dispensing drugs, increasingly, unscrupulous companies have used the anonymity of cyberspace to hide from federal and state safety regulations, placing the health of their customers at serious risk. These unethical companies can easily take advantage of the fact that, as consumers, we may leave our common sense behind when we turn on our computers. Too often, we assume that simply because a business has a website, it must be legitimate. Consequently, we've received hundreds of reports of Internet pharmacies selling powerful prescription drugs to consumers simply on the basis of answers to a health questionnaire--without the patient ever setting foot in a doctor's office. This practice, which has been condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association, places patients at serious risk for misdiagnoses and dangerous drug interactions. Perhaps even more frightening is that some Internet sellers are dispensing contaminated or counterfeit drugs to their unsuspecting customers. And, unfortunately, the ease with which websites can be created and removed and the difficulty regulators have in determining the identity of the corporations behind the websites create obstacles to states and federal agencies trying to shut down unlawful sellers. This legislation would require online sellers of prescription drugs to dispense medications only with valid prescriptions, to notify state boards of pharmacy in each state in which they operate of the establishment of their service, and to provide full disclosure of the address and telephone number of the business's headquarters on their website. Under this bill, Internet sellers who do not adhere to these basic standards will risk serious legal sanctions, including permanent prohibition from conducting further business and the freezing of assets. While we should ensure that legitimate pharmacies can continue to serve their customers on the information superhighway, we need to act immediately to derail those who would use the Internet in unsafe or illicit ways. The legislation we introduce today will give state and federal agencies the appropriate authority to protect American consumers from unscrupulous Internet sellers. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President on rollcall No. 270, I voted aye. It was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it would in no way change the outcome of that vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for bringing to the Senate a strong Defense Authorization conference report. While I have long had the greatest respect for my friends from Virginia and Michigan, the task they complete today is a testament to their legislative skill, managerial expertise and leadership. Over the last year--and for many years--Senators Warner and Levin have listened to our troops needs, and the needs of our troops' families. They have listened to our commanders and identified the equipment and modernization requirements needed to carry out the missions we, as a nation, expect of our military. They have listened to their colleagues, literally working through hundreds of amendments and incorporating many of them into this conference report. And today we consider a conference report which reflects all these influences and effectively balances the current national security requirements of our country with an eye toward the future needs of our military. Broadly speaking, the Defense Authorization report we adopt today properly places the fighting men and women of this country at the heart of our military priorities. It increases pay, extends special pay and bonus programs to facilitate troop retention and it begins to address the housing, health care and educational needs of troops and their families. In addition this report extends retirement benefits including, most notably, the TRICARE-for-life program which will provide a prescription drug benefit and reduce out-of-pocket medical expenses for our Medicare-eligible military retirees--making a lifetime health care commitment to our fighting men and women. Taken as a whole, this report is a significant step in the right direction. This conference agreement will ensure that the United States remains the world's preeminent superpower well into the 21st century. The report authorizes $38.9 billion for research, development, training and evaluation, including $4.8 billion for Ballistic Missile Defense, ensuring that we remain the most technologically advanced fighting force in the world and enabling our country to pursue a policy that will provide the greatest level of security in an ever-changing global environment. I am proud of the central role Connecticut has earned when it comes to providing the men and women of our armed forces with the cutting edge in military equipment. I feel this conference report reflects that continued preeminence. As many of my colleagues are aware, today is the 100th anniversary of the commissioning of the U.S.S. Holland, the United States Navy's first submarine. Today we mark 100 years of submarine operations by the United States Navy. I feel it is altogether appropriate that the Congress christen the next 100 years of submarine operations with a 21st century new attack submarine, the Virginia Class. It will be the most capable and most cost effective submarine class ever built. Therefore, I commend the conferees for recognizing the growing need for, and expanding role of, our submarine force by authorizing the block buy of five New Attack Submarines, including $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2001 for a new Virginia Class submarine. I am proud to have the U.S.S. Virginia, the first of its class, taking shape in Connecticut today. The commitment we make here today will continue this essential program for years to come. It is also encouraging that further planning and study for another innovative program, the conversion of four Trident submarines into guided missile submarines, remains a national priority, having been authorized for $37 million. Further, in response to a force level requirement report produced earlier this year by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this conference report requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on how our country might maintain at least 55 fast attack submarines through 2015. I fully support this initiative. The H-60 helicopter platform is once again recognized in this report for its unique versatility and combat-proven track record of survivability and performance. The agreement authorizes $206 million for 16 UH-60Ls and two UH-60Qs, and $280 million for 17 CH-60s. With respect to the demonstrated need of our armed forces, this authorization level represents an appropriate increase over the 21 helicopters requested by the Administration. The conference agreement also authorizes $310 million for F-15 engine upgrades and $305 million for F-16 engine upgrades. This will extend the life and improve the performance of these vital air supremacy assets. The New London Submarine Base is authorized to receive $3.1 million for much needed dry-dock construction which will enhance the base's ability to service and maintain our fighting force. I might also mention a number of other authorizations which are contained in this conference report, including for the C-17 cargo aircraft program, the JPATS program, the Joint STARS ground surveillance aircraft program, the Comanche helicopter development program, the F-22 fighter engineering and development program and the ongoing, but slowed, Joint Strike Fighter development. All of these important national security priorities will draw upon the ingenuity and strength of the citizens of Connecticut. I would also like to note the language in this conference report that will convey the national defense reserve fleet vessel Glacier to the Glacier Society of Bridgeport. The ship will be refurbished and docked in Bridgeport Harbor, becoming a museum to educate students and the general public about military service and the exploration of the North and South Poles. One of only a few ships to have served under both the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard, the icebreaker Glacier made 39 trips to the North and South poles, including the deepest penetration of the of the Antarctic by sea in 1961. The Glacier will become a valuable civic asset for Bridgeport, and I am pleased to see the inclusion of this provision in the report. And finally, I would like to take a moment to comment about one last provision. Senator DeWine and I worked on the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, Act, which was designed to help reduce injuries among firefighters across the country. The original House version of the bill had previously been introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. of New Jersey. Senator DeWine and I worked hard to move the FIRE Act and we were pleased when Chairman Warner and Senator Levin agreed to accept the FIRE Act as an amendment to the DOD Authorization bill. Our original amendment has been modified by the Conference Committee, but the FIRE provision offered here today as part of this Conference Report authorizes more than $460 million dollars worth of federal assistance to local fire departments and for related research. This legislation represents a major step in developing an effective partnership between the Federal government and the men and women who every day put their lives on the line to protect Americans from all sorts of man-made and natural disasters. The FIRE Act, is designed to provide local fire departments with the resources they need to keep firefighter safe and to protect the public. The bill is modeled on the very successful ``COPS'' program, which has helped towns and cities hire tens of thousands of police officers and to buy equipment to protect lives and property from crime. Now, under the FIRE Act the federal government will make a similar commitment to help protect lives and property from the ravages of fire, chemical spills, accidents, and natural disasters. Each day, a million U.S. firefighters put their lives on the line to protect our families, our homes, and our businesses. Unfortunately, under the current funding regime, these unselfish men and women aren't always as well-equipped as they should be. And in many ways the problems are getting worse. As our population grows, as our buildings and infrastructure age, as our suburbs expand and our highways and waterways become more congested, our firefighters and emergency medical technicians are being asked to respond to an increasing number and variety of dangerous situations. There is a bright side, as well. Technology has kept pace with the increasing demands. We now have high-tech equipment, like thermal- imaging devices, that allow firefighters to see inside a building without going into the blaze. And modern science has produced incredible materials that can be integrated into protective gear that can shield firefighters from heat and falling debris. Unfortunately, technology is not cheap. And local governments are seldom able to fund the purchase of all of the wonderful tools becoming available. There is a gap--a widening gap--between the leading edge of modern technology and our ability to put that technology to work to protect the public and our firefighters. I believe the Federal Government has an obligation to bridge the gap and help ensure that local firefighters have the financial resources they need to protect the public. We can't eliminate all of the dangers that confront firefighters, but we can at least ensure that our local fire companies have up-to-date, safe and reliable equipment and today we are doing something about the problem. By passing the FIRE Act today, Congress is saying to every firefighter in America: ``We have taken you for granted for too long. We won't ignore your needs any longer. We stand with you and we are committed to working together to ensure that America is as safe and as prepared for any catastrophe as it can be.'' Passage of the FIRE Act has been one of my highest legislative priorities this year. I want to thank Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and, of course, Senator DeWine for their vigilance and commitment on this most important issue. I also want to thank the experts at the National Safe Kids Campaign, International Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, National Volunteer Fire Council, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Society of Fire Service Instructors, the National Fire Protection Association, and The Safety Equipment Association for all of the assistance and insight they have provided over the course of the last year.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Senator Stevens and I both have a short time we want to take after our distinguished colleague has a chance to speak.

Mr. DODD. May I inquire? Would it be possible to extend morning business a few minutes beyond the 11 o'clock hour?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Senator Stevens and I will have a joint statement on an unrelated matter.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Alaska is going to come here shortly to share some thoughts and comments with me this morning. I will begin in order to move things along.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague from Montana leaves the floor, I commend him for his fine remarks. Connecticut is a long way geographically from the State of Montana. The Nation was transfixed over this past summer watching events unfold in the West and particularly in his State where so many millions of acres were engulfed in flames. I express the strong feelings of all of us across the country on the tremendous work these firefighters have done and note further that we just passed as part of the Defense authorization bill a provision, the Fire Act, which will, for the first time, provide financial resources much along the lines of the COPS programs for fire departments, the 30,000 of them that exist in this country--volunteer, paid, and combination departments--to assist local communities and States in providing the sophisticated technology today which firefighters need, particularly the volunteer departments, where chemical and toxic substances and the tragedies of this summer demand a talent, education, and training unlike people even imaged a few years ago. I commend the Senator from Montana for his fine work and express my sincere thanks to him and the fine people of Montana as well for a job well done.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I express my strong opposition and disappointment with the outcome of last night's Agriculture appropriations conference report with respect to U.S.-Cuba policy. It is rather ironic that those who rail against Fidel Castro's dictatorial behavior seem to have adopted some of his tendencies; namely, a willingness to abuse the democratic process and go against the will of the majority in the Congress. The proposed changes in the bill with respect to the sale of food to Cuba are modest at best since these exports can only be financed using third-country private commercial credit or cash. Such restrictive financing terms are a major hurdle for American exporters to overcome and are likely to significantly discourage any significant increases in such exports. With respect to the codification of existing travel restrictions on Americans wishing to travel to Cuba, I think this action is shameful and irresponsible. I predict the authors of this provision will live to regret deeply having taken away this and future administrations' discretion to grant licenses on a case-by-case basis in circumstances that do not fall into the now codified categories of permissible travel. I also believe that Cuban Americans who want to keep in touch with their family members in Cuba are going to be extremely critical of the fact that their ability to visit loved ones is now frozen in statute. I say to the authors of this provision that they are only kidding themselves if they think this is going to stop Cuban Americans who are determined to visit their family members in Cuba several times a year from doing so. Sadly, they are going to encourage otherwise law-abiding individuals to break the law. I think that is regrettable. I am supportive of other provisions of this legislation which will 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 strongly believe food and medicine should not be used as a sanctions tool, since the impact of denying such sales falls most heavily on innocent men, women, and children in these countries. This is not to confuse our sincere and deep objections and strong opposition to the Governments of North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Libya. But, it is not an American tradition to take food and medicine and make them a sanctions tool on a unilateral basis. We have understood in the past that you do not blame the innocent civilians of populations for the cruel regimes of their dictators and rulers. It is not in the American spirit to say to an innocent child--in any one of these countries--that if we are able to get food and medicine to you, you ought to be denied it as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. I find it appalling that Cuba has been singled out, because in this bill we now say food and medicine can go to North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Libya, but not to a little country of 11 million people 90 miles off our shore. I think that is regrettable. Cuba has been singled out for even more restrictive treatment than countries that are far more of a potential threat to United States foreign policy and national security interests than Cuba has ever been. I am sure the average American is extremely puzzled by the decision just taken by the Agriculture appropriations conferees. I do not blame them for being confused, to put it mildly, and puzzled. Didn't the House and Senate go on record in support of less restrictive conditions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba? Seventy Senators--70--voted to lift restrictions on the sale of such items; 301 Members out of the 435 Members of the House did so as well. And, 232 Members of the House also are on record in favor of lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba. Yet despite these overwhelming votes by both Chambers--majorities, bipartisan majorities--the advocates of ``tightening the screws,'' as they like to say, on Castro are always quick to say they hold no ill will against the Cuban people. Yet I somehow suspect that the residents of Havana or Santiago, Cuba, will not be applauding our recent actions in Washington. But that isn't what last night's conference decision was about, in any event. Very little we do in Washington with respect to Cuba has anything to do with winning the hearts and minds of the Cuban people. Rather, it is about attempting to win the hearts and votes of the residents of some sections of the country--hardly a wise and moral way, in my view, to make foreign policy decisions. Earlier this year, Senator Leahy and I introduced legislation that would take United States policy in a different direction with respect to the island of Cuba. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Mark Sanford. The bill is entitled the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2000. It would have lifted the archaic, counterproductive, and ill- conceived ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. We offered this legislation because we believe the existing restrictions on travel hinder rather than help our efforts to spread democracy as well as unnecessarily abridge the rights of ordinary Americans. We were taught in civics class that the United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet when it comes to Cuba, our Government abridges these rights with no greater rationale than political and rhetorical gain. It is one thing if Castro does not want to let an American citizen in. I understand that. He is a dictator. What I do not understand is a democratic government saying to its own people you can't go somewhere. Cuba lies just 90 miles from America's shore. Yet those 90 miles of water might as well be on a different planet. We have made a land ripe for American influence a forbidden territory. In doing so, we have enabled the Cuban regime to be a closed system with the Cuban people having little contact with their closest neighbors on this Earth. I note that in a few weeks the President of the United States is going to travel to Vietnam, a Communist government. There are 58,000 names on a wall just a few blocks from here of Americans who died in that conflict. Yet we have found it possible to rebuild diplomatic relations, economic relations, and even an America President will travel to a nation that only a few years ago we were in hostile conflict with and has a government with a political philosophy of which today we fundamentally disagree. Yet 90 miles off our shore there is a country to which you cannot even go to try to make a difference, and enlighten people about what democracy means. Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit the island nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, to Sudan, to Burma, to Yugoslavia, and to North Korea--but not to Cuba. Is there anyone who would come to this Chamber and suggest to me it is less dangerous to be in Sudan or Burma or Yugoslavia than the island nation that is 90 miles off our shore? I doubt it. You can fly to Iran. They held hostages, we all recall, back in the 1979-1980 period, yet I can go to Iran today. I can fly there, if I want, without restriction. But I cannot go 90 miles off our shore to the island of Cuba. What an inconsistency. If the Cubans want to stop Americans, as I said, from visiting their country, then that is their business. I disagree with it, but I would not be surprised that under a dictatorship they might pass such laws or prohibit such travel. But to say to an American citizen that you can travel to Iran, where they held American hostages for months on end, to North Korea, which has declared us to be an enemy of theirs completely, but you cannot travel 90 miles off the shore of this Nation to the island of Cuba is more than just a mistake, in my view. To this day, some Iranian politicians believe the United States to be ``the Great Satan.'' That is what they like to call us. We hear it all the time. Just two decades ago, Iran occupied our Embassy and took innocent American diplomats hostage. To this day, protesters in Tehran burn the American flag with the encouragement of some officials in their Government. Those few Americans who venture into such inhospitable surroundings often find themselves pelted by rocks and accosted by the public. Similarly, we do not ban travel to the Sudan, a nation we attacked with cruise missiles several years ago for its support of terrorism; to Burma, a nation with one of the most oppressive regimes in the world today; to North Korea, whose soldiers have peered at American servicemen through gun sights for decades; or Syria, which has one of the most egregious human rights records and is one of the foremost sponsors of terrorism. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and ideals will foster the transition to democracy in that country. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and from the influence of Americans when they go to that country to help bring about change we all seek serves our own interest. The Cuban people are not currently permitted the freedom to travel enjoyed by many peoples around the world. However, because Fidel Castro does not permit Cubans to leave Cuba and come to this country is no justification for adopting a similar principle in this country--a great democracy. We need to treasure and respect the fundamental rights we embrace as Americans. Travel is one of them. If other countries want to prohibit us from going there, that is their business. But for us to say that citizens of Connecticut or Alabama cannot go where they would like to go is not the kind of restraint we ought to put on our own people. Today, every single country in the western hemisphere is a democracy, with one exception: Cuba. American influence, through person-to-person and cultural exchanges, was one of the prime factors in this evolution from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian and military regimes to one where democracy is the rule. Our current policy toward Cuba limits these exchanges and prevents the United States from using our most potent weapon, in my view, in our effort to combat totalitarianism, and that is our own people--our own people. They are some of the best ambassadors we have ever sent anywhere. They are the best ambassadors to have. Most totalitarian regimes bar Americans from coming into their countries for that very reason. These countries are afraid of the gospel of freedom that might motivate their citizens to overthrow dictators, as they have done in dozens of nations over the last half century. Isn't it ironic that when it comes to Cuba, we do the dictator's bidding for him in a sense? Cuba does not have to worry about America spreading democracy. Our own Government stops us from doing so. There is no better way, in my view, to communicate America's values, our ideals, than by unleashing the average American men and women to demonstrate, by daily living, what our great country stands for, and the contrasts between what we stand for and what exists in Cuba today. I do not believe there was ever a sensible rationale for restricting Americans' right to travel to Cuba. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the cold war, I do not think any excuse remains today to ban this kind of travel. This argument that dollars and tourism will be used to prop up the regime is specious. The regime seems to have survived 38 years despite the draconian U.S. embargo during that entire period. The notion that allowing Americans to spend a few dollars in Cuba is somehow going to give major aid and comfort to the Cuban regime is without basis, in my view. Political rhetoric is not sufficient reason to abridge the freedoms of American citizens. Nor is it sufficient reason to stand by a law which counteracts one of the basic premises of American foreign policy; namely, the spread of democracy. The time has come to allow Americans-- average Americans--to travel freely to Cuba not make it even more difficult to do so. Mr. President, a small number of individuals in the Congress may have temporarily succeeded in hijacking the democratic process with respect to this issue and in thwarting the will of the majority with respect to loosening U.S. restrictions on travel and sales of food and medicine to Cuba. But let me assure you that this issue is not settled. Those of us who want to see meaningful change in our Cuba policy will be back next year raising this matter on the floors of the House and Senate. And I predict that when the democratic process is allowed to work, the results of last night's conference will be decisively reversed and U.S. policy toward Cuba will be finally put on the right track and the prospects of a peaceful democratic transition in that country greatly enhanced, and the 11 million Cubans will know that the American people care about them despite their strong objections to the Government which runs that country today. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I went to Danville, KY, last evening, and I thought both Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney did an admirable job in presenting their respective points of view during the Vice Presidential debate. It will be understandable if I express a certain amount of parochial pride in the performance of my colleague and friend from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, who I thought did a magnificent job in laying out in civil, polite, and in a courteous way, the differences between the two teams, the two parties, and the candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America. I think all Americans benefited last night as a result of the very eloquent, precise, thoughtful, and clear presentations. So it seems fitting for me to take a minute to commend them both, particularly my colleague from Connecticut. When young people around the country are thinking about politics and wonder whether good examples are out there, it is my hope that they might be shown by their history teachers, the Vice Presidential debate of the year 2000. Indeed, it was a wonderful example of how people of significant differences of opinion and points of view can have a worthwhile, informative discussion and debate of critical issues that face the future of our Nation. I commend both, particularly my good friend and colleague from Connecticut. There is a collective sense of pride over the junior Senator from Connecticut. I may not call him ``junior'' Senator much longer, but I want to tell my colleagues how very proud I was of his performance.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I want to say briefly before the time runs out, I have great admiration for the work Senator Stevens has done as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It is a tough job. We all know how hard he works and how hard he tries to work out the differences in the spending bills. I have great respect for him and the work he has done as chairman of that committee. That said, I also would be remiss if I did not mention that there are several important matters, generally speaking, that we have not addressed. We are about to wrap up, to finish over the next few days, with maybe one or two votes left, I am told. I am saddened that, despite the efforts of Senator Stevens, the leaders, and others, the Senate has thus far failed to act on several other important matters, including the 39 million seniors who will go without prescription drug benefits under Medicare. That is a great loss. We could have done it this year, and we didn't. More than 11 million working families will not get the benefit of an increase in the minimum wage. That is a great loss for those people. Mr. President, 53 million children go to school every day in this country, and for the first time in 35 years we were not able to pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to try to improve the quality of schools, reduce class sizes, and come up with good afterschool programs. So, 53 million children lose, 11 million working people don't get an increase in the minimum wage, and 39 million seniors fail to get prescription drug benefits. I think it is a sad day indeed. We could have passed these measures, and we didn't. I am deeply saddened by it, as I think the American people are as well. While I commend Senator Stevens and members of the Appropriations Committee, including my colleague from Nevada, Harry Reid, and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who have worked tirelessly to get the appropriations work done, the fact of the matter is, a great deal of America's business has gone unattended. Mr. President, I regret that the leadership of this Congress has failed thus far to act on these and other crucial priorities. If we can find two weeks to debate renaming National Airport, if we can spend many days debating whether to provide estate tax relief to the 44,000 most affluent Americans, then I would hope that in these waning days of this Congress we could find the time to consider the needs of America's children, seniors, and working families. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for his wonderful comments about John Kluge. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise--and will be joined by my friend and colleague from Alaska--to speak about a remarkable gift that was made to our wonderful country yesterday. Yesterday, it was announced that the Library of Congress--the greatest library in the world--would receive the single largest gift in its history--$60 million--to promote scholarly excellence. Like a university, the center will have endowed chairs in a number of fields. The remarkable gift by a remarkable person will also establish a $1 million annual prize for lifetime achievement in scholarly endeavors. The gift has been made by a wonderful man whom I have known for many years and for whom I have great admiration, John Kluge. He is also a very good friend of the Senator from Alaska. John Kluge immigrated to our shores from Germany nearly eight decades ago. He began his working life selling shoes, clothes, and stationery, and moved up from there to become one of our nation's most successful businessmen. Like many others whose lives followed a similar path, Mr. Kluge has decided to give something back to the country that has given him so much over his years of living in this Nation. His remarkable gift of $60 million will benefit all Americans by raising standards of scholarly excellence, and blazing new paths of knowledge in areas of science, the humanities, and the social sciences. It will also, in my view, be immensely beneficial to our institutions of government. Those of us who serve in those institutions will have the benefit of the fresh, bold thinking that men and women of scholarly achievement can bring to the most pressing challenges that we face as a nation. Hopefully, this gift will contribute to making our nation even more prosperous and just in the years to come. Perhaps most importantly, however, this gift stands as testimony to the unique and ongoing promise of America. Every day, we are reminded by events large and small that this is an extraordinary country. Our is a country that--despite its problems--offers individuals a level of freedom, equality, and dignity unsurpassed anywhere else on the planet, or indeed, in the history of the world. That is why people risk their lives to come to our shores. That is why we are the inspiration for people who in fact yesterday rose up against tyranny--the people of Yugoslavia--on the shores of the Balkans. The extraordinarily generous gift given yesterday by Mr. Kluge to the Library of Congress reminds all Americans that ours is a land of limitless possibility--a land where even the most humble can go on to achieve great success. And it is a gift that reminds each one of us that, in our own way, we have an opportunity and an obligation to give back to the country that has given us so much. Because more than anything else, America is the sum of the acts of selfless patriotism of its people. Any time we are reminded of that fact, my colleagues, we receive a gift whose value far exceeds its monetary sum. John Kluge gave such a gift yesterday, as he has on countless other occasions. In addition to this remarkable gift which John Kluge gave to the Library of Congress, he has helped raise $48 million in private funds for the Library on previous occasions to establish an electronic enterprise, the National Digital Library, with which my colleague from Alaska has been deeply involved. Congress appropriated an additional $15 million for that program. Over the years, he has given $13 million of his own money to the Library, including $5 million to kick start the digital library. John Kluge was the major contributor who orchestrated the wonderful 200th celebration of the Library of Congress. He has given millions of dollars to other wonderful causes, universities, and other worthwhile enterprises. I have known John Kluge for years and years. He was a wonderful friend of my parents. I have spent an awful lot of time with him over a number of years, particularly in the last number of months. He truly is a great American, truly a great patriot, and his wonderful contribution is going to make the Library of Congress an even greater institution in the years to come than it has been. I wanted to take a minute to express the gratitude of all of us, my constituents, and all Americans to John Kluge for his remarkable contribution to our Nation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday, an op-ed on police reform in Northern Ireland written by my friend and colleague Senator Kennedy appeared in the Washington Post. In that op-ed Senator Kennedy very concisely and eloquently stated why it is so important that meaningful police reform happens in Northern Ireland. As all of our colleagues know full well, Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to promote peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland for many years. It has been an honor to work closely with him in that effort and I commend him for his leadership on this issue. Needless to say I agree completely with him that the recommendations of the Patten Commission must be fully implemented, to ensure a genuine new beginning for a police force in Northern Ireland that will be acceptable to the Catholic community. I hope and pray that those who are currently playing a role in the legislative process in the British Parliament take time to reflect upon the thoughts expressed in this very important op-ed. I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of Senator Kennedy's article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I would urge all of our colleagues to take a moment to read it when they have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Collins in offering legislation that will support our youth and promote their abilities by helping them stay in college and complete their degrees. There is no question that post-secondary education is a critical component in individual success in today's economy. Parents understand this reality from the day their children are born and they start worrying about how to make college affordable. Students know it as they work to achieve good grades and high test scores. And policymakers know it as we work to increase Pell grants and support increased saving options for families. But colleges achievement is not just about being accepted at a higher education institution. To fully see the benefits of post-secondary education, one must complete a degree. And yet, while college enrollment rates have been rising, 37 percent of students who enter post-secondary education drop out before they receive a degree or certificate. This problem is especially acute for minorities. Thirty percent of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans drop out of college before the end of their first year. This is almost double the rate of white Americans. For these students and for us as a nation, these statistics represent a lost opportunity. Clearly, these students aspire to greater things-- to more education and better careers. But instead of fulfilling this promise, they leave school with their potential unrealized. Unfortunately, many of them also leave school not just with an academic set-back, but also with substantial student loan debt, which today is as much a reality of college attendance as is a course syllabus. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``College Completion Challenge Grants Act of 2000'', would provide vital support and assistance to at-risk students to help them stay in school and complete their degrees. The College Completion Challenge grant program is based on the successful work of the Student Support Services (SSS) program, which is one of the Turning R Into Opportunity programs. While TRIO is better known for its early intervention programs with talented, at-risk high school students, SSS follows through on these early efforts by supporting at-risk, first-generation college students once they are enrolled. The College Completion Challenge grants would supplement these student support services by offering additional scholarship aid, intensive summer programs, and further support services to students at risk of dropping out. Higher education institutions participating in SSS as well as those that provide similar support through other sources would be eligible to apply for these additional dollars. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has already acted on similar legislation, which was included in the Higher Education Technical Amendments that passed the House earlier this year. So, I am hopeful that we too can find an appropriate vehicle to support these students as they pursue their dreams. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator Roberts to draw attention to a most interesting report on our country's policy toward Cuba. Some of my colleagues may know that a bipartisan group of former Members of Congress traveled to Cuba in September on a fact-finding mission for the United States Association of Former Members of Congress. These four former members, John Brademas, Larry LaRocco, Fred Grandy, and Jack Buechner, did not travel as a group officially invited by the Cuban Government, but rather traveled on tourist visas, a distinction that allowed the delegation more flexibility to meet with representatives of a wide cross section of Cuban society, including religious and cultural leaders, as well as ordinary Cuban citizens. Upon returning to the United States, the delegation wrote a detailed report concerning their visit to Cuba, and their recommendations on U.S.-Cuban policy. Remarkably, the recommendations contained in the report were unanimous, and were markedly similar to the recommendations made by two previous delegations in 1996, and 1999. The report, which was released on September 5, states that ``United States policy toward Cuba should be addressed on the basis first, of what is best for U.S. national interests, and second, what is best for Cuba and the Cuban people.'' It goes on to observe that, as a policy aimed at bringing about political change in Cuba, the regimen of comprehensive sanctions and the embargo have become increasingly anachronistic. It calls upon Congress and the Administration to begin a phased reduction of sanctions against Cuba, and a first step, recommends that current legislation on Capitol Hill to remove all restrictions on the sales or gifts of food and medicines be enacted. The report concludes with the observation that the delegation found ``solid support among key independents'' in Cuba for this action. Among other recommendations, the delegation suggested that the United States establish a bank in Havana to authorize the sale of food and medicine, that additional direct flights between the U.S. and Cuba be facilitated, and steps taken to improve Internet communication between the two countries. These recommendations were based on the perception by the traveling delegation that the embargo on food and medicine is hurting common Cuban citizens while failing to advance U.S. national security interests on the island. The consensus in Cuba is that Fidel Castro is not being affected by this embargo--he has all the food and medicine he needs. The Cuban people recognize that the embargo hurts only themselves, and are actively seeking help from the United States. As we approach the final days of this session, hard-fought progress toward an easing of the embargo may still bear fruit. While the Senate considers important legislation in this area, I urge my colleagues to read both the excerpts of the report at the end of my speech and the full text of the Association report, which is available from the United States Association of Former Members of Congress at 330 A Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20002. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that portions of the delegation's report be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to enhance our efforts to provide children with opportunities to develop literacy skills and a love of reading through access to and ownership of books. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Murray. This bill would continue the good work of the Inexpensive Book Distribution program which we know as Reading is Fundamental (RIF), and would authorize two new programs to support public/private partnerships with the mission of making books and reading an integral part of childhood and of providing books to children who may have no books of their own. Books opened a new world for me as a child and I want to make sure that all children have that same opportunity. Books are almost magical in their power. They inspire children to dream, to imagine infinite possibilities and ultimately to work to make some of those possibilities real. But for too many children, the power of books is unrealized because of their own inability to read and because of limited access to books in their homes and communities. In 1998, 38 percent of fourth graders in America ranked below the basic level of reading according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Sixty-four percent of African American and 60 percent of Hispanic American fourth graders read below the basic level of reading. These children are at high risk of never learning to read at an advanced level. When children do not learn to read in the early years of elementary school, it is virtually impossible to catch up in later years. Research shows that if a child cannot read well by third grade, the prospect of later success is significantly diminished. Seventy-five percent of students who score below grade level in reading in third grade will be behind grade level in high school. But the foundation on which literacy is built, begins much earlier. Reading to babies teaches them the rhythms and sounds of language. As early as pre-school, children can recognize specific books, can understand how to handle them, and can listen to stories for in books. The National Research Council's 1998 landmark study, ``Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children,'' makes clear that to become good readers, children need to learn letters and sounds, they need to learn to read for meaning, and they must practice reading with many types of books to gain the speed and fluency that makes reading rewarding. We know that children who live in print-rich environments and are read to in their early years are much more likely to learn to read on schedule. However, parents of children living in poverty often lack the resources to buy books, rarely have easy access to children's books, and may face reading difficulties of their own. For many families, where the choice is between buying books to read at home and buying food or clothes, federal programs that support book donations and literacy can change lives. This legislation creates what I call the Access to Books for Children program (or ABC). It provides children with better access to books and resources from birth to adulthood, including opportunities to own books. The success of the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program is well-known. This program has enabled Reading Is Fundamental, Inc. (RIF) to put books in the hands and homes of America's neediest and most at- risk children. RIF is the nation's largest children's and family literacy organization. Through a contract with the U.S. Department of Education, RIF provides federal matching funds to thousands of school and community based organizations that sponsor local RIF projects. Some 240,000 parents, educators, care givers, and community volunteers run RIF programs at more than 16,500 sites that reach out to serve 3.5 million kids nationwide. This bill would continue the good work of the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program and increase the authorization for this program to $25 million. This legislation also supports two new public/private partnerships to reach children with books and literacy services. The Local Partnerships for Books programs is funded not to support a new literacy project, but to support the ones that already exist with low cost or donated books. The program would support local partnerships that link with grassroots organizations to provide them with low-cost or donated books for at- risk, low income children. Local Partnerships for Books is organized around the principle that the private sector should be a major player in this effort to put books in the hands of our Nation's children through donations and partnerships. This legislation would also support Partnerships for Infants and Young Children--a program that makes early literacy part of pediatric primary care. This program would support linking literacy and a healthy childhood. Visits to a pediatrician are a regular part of early childhood and offer an excellent opportunity to empower parents to build the foundations for literacy. This initiative is modeled on Reach Out and Read (ROR) which utilizes a comprehensive approach--including volunteer readers in waiting rooms, physician training in literacy, and providing each child with an age appropriate book during each visit--to support parents in developing literacy in their children. An evaluation of this program found that parents are ten times more likely to read to their children if they received a book from their pediatrician. Mr. President, this legislation is just one piece of the larger puzzle we must confront as we struggle to improve our children's literacy skills--but it is a piece that cannot be overlooked. To learn to read, kids need books to read; it is as simple as that. This legislation will harness the energies and commitment of volunteers, corporate America, local literacy programs, doctors and teachers to make books, and book ownership, a reality for every child. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and an endorsement be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah. As always, he is very gracious. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending motion made by the Democratic leader on behalf of the Latino fairness legislation, and also in support of the underlying H-1B visa legislation. First, let me speak to the H-1B legislation, which is so vital to the economic growth of our nation. This legislation both raises the limit on the number of foreign high-tech workers admitted to the United States each year, and invests vital funds in educating our American students, especially those in low-income areas, in math, science, and technology. This is a critically important bill that is necessary to maintain the dynamic growth we have seen in the high-tech sector of our economy over both the short- and long-term. We live in a remarkable period of prosperity. Just today we read in our newspapers that the poverty rate in America is the lowest in 20 years, while median household income is at an all time high--over $40,000 a year. Yet, we can do more to lift the tide of growth for all Americans. Currently, approximately 190,000 high-tech jobs go unfilled in America each year, and it is expected that close to 1.3 million high-tech jobs will be unfilled in 2006. Our high-tech businesses are hurting for employees, and there are not enough American students graduating with technology degrees to fill these jobs. The short-term answer to this shortage of technology skilled workers is simple: we must admit more highly-trained foreign workers to the United States. This legislation will do that by raising the number of H-1B visas issued to 195,000. Yet, in the long-run, we should not simply keep importing foreign workers to shore up our workforce. We must do a better job of preparing our own students to seek careers in technology. That is why the education and training provisions included in this bill are so important. By making an investment in math and science education for our young people, especially those students who live in our low-income areas, we are investing in their future as well as America's future. Having said that, we must remember that the economic prosperity that we enjoy today is not being distributed equally. There is a cloud behind the silver lining of our current prosperity. The gap between the most affluent Americans and the rest of the population is widening, and poverty rates are still too high. 11.8 percent of our citizens live below the poverty line. True, that number is the lowest in years. However, it also means that 32.2 million Americans cannot afford the basic necessities of life. A disproportionate number of those who live in poverty are minorities, including a great many who have left their country of birth for a better life in America. This is one of the reasons why when we talk about H-1B visas we must also talk about the Latino Fairness Act. This act will help restore fairness and parity to our immigration laws, keeping families together and encouraging more Hispanics to work lawfully. This bill has three purposes; First, it will update the date of registry to 1986, recognizing that immigrants who have lived in the United States for a very long time have deep roots here, and it is best to put them on a track toward citizenship. Second, it would restore section 245(I) of the immigration code to allow immigrants who are undergoing the process of legalization to apply for their visas in the United States, rather than forcing them to leave the country and reenter, sometimes causing them to be ``locked- out'' of the United States for years. Finally, the Latino Fairness Act would guarantee that Latinos from strife-torn nations are treated the same under immigration law. The oppression that residents of one Latin American country have suffered should not be considered more or less grave than the oppression faced by the residents of another country where serious human rights abuses have been committed. By improving parity and equality in our immigration law, this bill would even the playing field for many Latin Americans who want to come to this country and be referred to as simply ``Americans.'' In fact, I would hope that as we continue efforts to enact this legislation, we would consider expanding the list of covered nationalities to include people from countries that also experience economic strife. I would like to take a moment to share with you the story of just one of the many immigrants that would be helped by this law. Gheycell moved to the United States in 1991, when she was 12 years old, with her father and sister from war-torn Guatemala. She went to school and became an active member of her community. In high school, she formed a club to help homeless adults and children in Los Angeles. Her father applied for asylum and they were all given work permits. Gheycell aspired to go to college to become a teacher and help others. She could not afford to go to a state university so she went to community college while working full time to save money for university tuition. Her father has applied for permanent residence under current law, but Gheycell has turned 21 and no longer qualifies for adjustment of status through her father's application. Her work permit has expired and she is now undocumented. She must return to Guatemala where she will not have the opportunities she has here. Her father and sister are not getting their green cards and Gheycell does not want to be separated from her family or give up her dream of educating and helping children here in her adopted homeland. Do we really want to be responsible for turning Gheycell away from her dream? America needs more teachers. Why are we sending this dedicated American away? Denying Gheycell a visa is both her and America's loss. That is why we must act to help Gheycell and others like her. Reforming our immigration laws is not only an issue that is important for our economy, but is also important to our values as a nation. If we truly believe in family values, we need to value families. We should be trying to keep families together, especially those families with children that need two wage-earners to stay above the poverty line. The Latino Fairness Act, as much as any other legislation this Congress will consider, tells Americans and the world that we do value families. It says that we will not turn family members away when they have for years been a part of America--working, serving their community, and contributing to the well-being of their families and our country. We read stories every day in the paper and in magazines about the innovators and leaders of the new economy. Thanks in many respects to them, the technology sector is booming. That sector now needs the relief that the H-1B legislation will provide. However, we must remember that people like Gheycell also exist--people who are not the subject of biographies and ``man-of-the-year'' awards--that need relief too. Whle the Latino Fairness measures may not be technically germane to the H-1B bill, they are highly relevant to the issues we are debating today. The general goal of the H-1B legislation is to admit immigrants to our country to work and contribute to our economic prosperity. Why then are we attempting to limit consideration of a bill that would allow people who have been living and working in the United States to stay here and continue to contribute to our prosperity? We seem to be giving with one hand, and taking with the other. By obstructing the Latino Fairness Act, we are effectively closing our doors and contributing to a process that will result in the departure of people that have been working and adding to our prosperity for years. At a time when job vacancies are commonplace, we can't afford as a nation to turn people out. If we want to help the high tech community, our economic well-being, and families, we need to pass both the H-1B and Latino fairness bills, and I hope that my colleagues will agree with me on this matter.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I think under the order, my colleague and friend from North Carolina is to be recognized to offer an amendment at this juncture. I have had a brief discussion with my colleague from North Carolina. I don't know whether I need to ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes prior to Senator Helms being recognized or not in order to achieve that result. May I inquire what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. If the Chair will inform the Senator from Connecticut when 8 minutes have transpired, I will leave a couple minutes for my friend from Texas.