Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I intended to offer these remarks prior to the consideration of the Thompson-Torricelli amendment, but time did not permit it. I am pleased with the outcome of the vote in this Chamber regarding the Thompson amendment. I do regret, in a sense, that we had to take the vote. I am concerned that the powers that be in the People's Republic of China, or elsewhere, may misread the vote as somehow rejection of our concern on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Nothing could be further from the truth. This vote that occurred is obviously one where most of us felt very deeply that the underlying agreement is of critical importance, as is the subject matter of the amendment offered by our friends and colleagues from Tennessee and New Jersey. But it is the strong view of many of us that this was an unrelated matter and the amendment, as drawn, was flawed in several respects. Specifically, the amendment called for the imposition of unilateral sanctions against the People's Republic of China, Russia, and North Korea for past and prospective proliferation activities. Although the amendment did give the President the authority to waive these sanctions under certain circumstances, it also provides for the congressional challenge of the President's use of that authority under expedited procedures. Clearly, the issue the sponsors sought to address in this amendment is a deeply serious one, with significant national security and foreign policy implications. I, for one, would not attempt to stand here and argue that the People's Republic of China, or North Korea, or Russia, or several other nations for that matter, have always steadfastly adhered to the international standards set forth in the existing multilateral nonproliferation agreements and arms control regimes. Nor would I suggest that China does not have the same obligations that every other nation has to ensure that its exports of sensitive nuclear weapons-related technology to North Korea, Iran, Libya, and other states seeking to acquire such dangerous weapons capability cease to occur. I do wonder, however, whether the underlying legislation is the appropriate place to be having a debate about an issue that is, after all, a global problem that goes well beyond our trade relations with one nation. Nor is the is problem likely to be solved by our simply legislating sanctions against one country or another. This is a multilateral problem that isn't going to be contained without meaningful cooperation and the involvement of all nations with a stake in containing the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. I am also fearful that whichever way the vote turned out--and in this case it was defeated--it will be misinterpreted by those who want to believe that the U.S., and specifically the U.S. Senate, does not care about the issue of nuclear proliferation, and therefore potential proliferators are free to do whatever they want. I don't believe that is an accurate nor wise message to be sending. Nor do I think it serves to further international nuclear nonproliferation cooperation. As to the specifics of the amendment just adopted, I am puzzled by how the sponsors have chosen to approach what is, after all, a global problem. They have chosen to single out three countries--China, Russia, and North Korea--for their participation in proliferation activities, while effectively ignoring similar actions taken by other smaller nations. The list is much larger than those three nations. Any action taken should be global in its focus. I also don't understand why our existing nuclear nonproliferation laws don't provide at least what I believe for the time being sufficient authority to the President to respond accordingly to violations of international nonproliferation standards by China or any other potential exporter. These laws include: the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, Arms Export Control Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Export Administration Act, Chemical and Biological Weapons Control Elimination Act, Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation Act, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, and the Iran Proliferation Act of 2000. These laws cover a full range of dangerous proliferation activities. The mechanics of the amendment just rejected also gave me great pause. The low evidentiary standards in the amendment could automatically trigger a number of mandatory unilateral sanctions that would ultimately hurt, or could hurt, our foreign policy, economic, and technological interests. We must ensure that only those who traffic in arms are affected by those sanctions. Proliferation is a very delicate and complex issue that affects our economic and foreign policy agendas. Ensuring the fullest cooperation of all the major participants in this sector is by its very nature a dynamic process with significant diplomatic ramifications. Attempting to legislate the mechanics of this effort is akin to attempting to perform brain surgery with a hacksaw, in my view. China has problems--serious ones--with proliferation. Nobody here is going to claim that China is a benevolent democracy, and I am sure we all agree that there is much China must do to meet the standards we expect of civilized nations who are going to join the World Trade Organization. Yet, I also believe we should recognize that there has been some positive movement in this area. Recent efforts at U.S. engagement have resulted in China joining a number of major multilateral arms control regimes in assisting us to defuse a nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula, and in participating constructively in international efforts to contain the escalating arms race between India and Pakistan. How can we build on that progress? Are we going to do it by denying China PNTR or mandating the imposition of unilateral sanctions? Surely, there has to be a better way to encourage additional cooperation from Chinese authorities in this area. I respectfully suggest that the Thompson amendment should not be misinterpreted because, as important as it is, it would be misguided, in my view, to include it as was attempted in this particular legislation. There is a far greater chance that we are going to get the kind of cooperation as a result of China being a part of the World Trade Organization than isolating them further. I hope we will have another opportunity to address the proliferation issue. It is one that needs to be addressed. This would have been the wrong place. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator Reid, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Committee. I want to raise an issue and briefly discuss an amendment that I filed regarding the University of Connecticut. The amendment requests that the Department of Energy release $7.9 million that was originally appropriate in 1993 for the construction of an Advanced Technologies Institute at the University of Connecticut. Because of initial problems with the siting of the facility, the University was granted no-cost extensions for the award. The problems have since been resolved and the University is ready to break ground. I believe that the University of Connecticut, like other institutions, may, without Congressional action, lose out on the receipt of money that was already set aside for them. It is my understanding that the Senate, in its wisdom, has resolved similar situations in recent months. I would ask the chairman and ranking member to continue to work with me to try and rectify the situation with the University of Connecticut.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for posing the question, but I always love to hear my colleague quote poetry, under any set of circumstances. I have some remarks to share regarding the pending matter, but there is no great hurry. I would not want to interrupt the flow of my good friend and seatmate's remarks. So I am very patient to listen to his comments. I, too, voted for the Wellstone amendment yesterday on religious freedom. I would like to associate myself with my colleague's remarks. My remarks touch on the agreement but not as extensively as the comments of my colleague from West Virginia on the subject of religious freedom. I commend him for his comments. I would like to be associated with those thoughts. So I am very content to listen to the poetry. I think America is enlightened. I think there are a lot more people listening to this debate, I say to my colleague from West Virginia, than would be reflected by the participation of our fellow colleagues on a Friday afternoon. But the comments of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia are always profound, always thoughtful, always meaningful. His colleagues appreciate them, and the American public do as well. So I am very delighted to sit here and be enlightened further. Poetry is always something that enriches the soul.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Chamber is not packed this afternoon, but I hope our colleagues who are back in their offices on Capitol Hill, and maybe our good friend David Obey from the House, were enlightened by the poetry of warning by our senior colleague from West Virginia, about putting a fence at the top of the cliff rather than the ambulance down in the valley. I am always impressed and I never cease to be amazed by my seatmate from West Virginia. I have been here for 20 years and not a day goes by that I don't learn something new from and benefit immensely by my friendship with the Senator from West Virginia. Today is no exception. That was a tour de force. He recited from memory at least 10, 12, maybe 14 stanzas. I thank him immensely for his comments regarding the pending matter, the granting of permanent normal trade relations status with the People's Republic of China. I begin these brief remarks, if I may, by commending the two senior members of the Finance Committee who have jurisdiction over the pending matter, Senator Roth of Delaware and Senator Moynihan of New York. Both of these gentlemen have made significant contributions to the wealth and strength of our Nation. This will probably be the last piece of business the Senator from New York will be directly involved in before his retirement from the Senate. It is appropriate that his closing efforts, legislatively, should involve a piece of legislation as monumental and important as the pending matter. Senator Moynihan has made unique and valued contributions to our Nation's wealth during his years of public service. As a member of the executive branch--as a staff member there, a servant of various administrations and, most recently, of course, during his tenure in this wonderful body. So I wish him well and commend him once again for his latest endeavor. I commend Senator Roth as well who has worked on this legislation. I rise to share a few thoughts about this bill, a bill that will confer, as we all know now, permanent normal trading relations with the People's Republic of China. In so doing, this bill would also trigger the implementation of the bilateral trade agreement entered into between the United States and China last November related to China's accession to the World Trade Organization. After many months of delay, I am very pleased that the Senate finally has arrived at this discussion that we have conducted over the past several days and will continue next week. I regret it has taken this long. I think the matter should have come up earlier. But I am pleased we are finally getting a chance to debate the merits and consider amendments on this very important piece of legislation. PNTR, as it is called, and China's entry into the WTO are extremely important milestones, in my view, toward the full assimilation of the world's most populous nation into the global economic system. China's membership in the World Trade Organization will also serve, in my view, as an important cornerstone of U.S.-China relations in the 21st century. The requirement that China adhere to the World Trade Organization's global trading rules and standards should have and will have profound and long-lasting implications not only for China, but for the United States and the world community. Not only will this agreement alter the landscape of U.S.-Chinese trade relations and produce, I hope, a fairer and more competitive global trading environment, over time, I think this agreement and this entry by China into the WTO will also have a most profound impact on China's social, economic, and political systems. Over the last three decades, successive American Presidents, from Richard Nixon to the present occupant of the White House, Bill Clinton, have worked hard to fashion a constructive relationship with the People's Republic of China. As we all know, this has proved more difficult at some times than others because the Chinese have made it so--too often because of their unilateral decisions and actions. The goal has always remained the same however--to move China toward a more open and prosperous system, to enter the family of democracies and freedom that are emerging throughout the world, and to become a society built on a foundation consistent with the international community's norms and values. The Clinton administration's proposal to grant PNTR status to China and support its membership in the World Trade Organization are very much in keeping with the longstanding tradition that has gone back over several decades. Historically, the trade relationship between China and the United States has been disproportionately tilted in China's favor due to its mercantilist trading policies. Granting PNTR and allowing China to enter the World Trade Organization, I hope, will restore the competitive balance in that relationship and generate what could be enormous opportunities for American exports, job creation, and investments in the world's third largest economy. The commercial benefits to the United States from World Trade Organization accession are clear, compelling and very wide-ranging. American farmers, American workers, American businesses, both large and small, will benefit from China's new status. In order for the United States to agree to support China's membership in the WTO, Chinese authorities were required to make across-the-board unilateral trade concessions to the United States to bring our trading relationship into better balance. Among other things, the Chinese have agreed to slash tariffs on U.S. agricultural and industrial imports, expand the rights of U.S. companies to distribute American products throughout China, and grant U.S. companies broad access to China's banking, telecommunications, and insurance sectors. The bilateral agreement which codifies these concessions includes as well important safeguards against unfair competition by China that will allow U.S. authorities to respond quickly to products and specific import surges that may threaten the viability of certain vulnerable import-sensitive domestic industries. The U.S. technology industry also stands to gain, in my view, from this agreement as China begins participation in the information technology agreement. Under this ITA agreement, all tariffs on computers, telecommunications equipment, semiconductors, and other high-tech products will be totally eliminated. U.S. high-technology companies have emerged as one of the driving forces of our recent economic boom. With China's participation in the information technology agreement, these companies may continue a trend of expansion and success on the international scale that will result in more domestic jobs in the industry. China has made important concessions on trading and distribution rights as well. Manufacturers in the United States have been severely hampered over the past number of years by China's restrictions on the right of foreign firms and U.S. firms to import and export and to own wholesaling outlets or warehouses in China. For the very first time, under this agreement, these rights will be granted to U.S. firms. Further distribution rights are being provided for some of China's most restricted sectors, including transportation, maintenance, and repair. As a result, American firms operating in China will not only be able to import a greater number of goods, but they will also be allowed to establish their own distribution networks. While it is not easy to put an exact dollar figure on these concessions, experts estimate that the annual U.S. exports will increase by as much as $14 billion a year--nearly double the current value of our exports. And more than 400,000 high-paying export-related American jobs will be sustained by expanded exports to the People's Republic of China. These are important benefits and serve to highlight the wide-ranging impact that China's changed trading status will have on the American economy as a whole. At this juncture, I also want to briefly mention how granting the PNTR to China would affect my own State of Connecticut. In 1998, Connecticut's merchandise exports to China totaled $302 million, making it one of the most trade-dependent States in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of all firms exporting to China from Connecticut in 1997 were small- and medium-sized companies--not the large corporations in my State. Clearly, an open China will provide a venue for increased sales of Connecticut-made products and an increase in jobs available to Connecticut workers in companies both large and small. Connecticut's burgeoning high-tech industry, for example, will be able to take advantage of China's participation in the information technology agreement and the elimination of tariffs on these goods which is, in effect, a tax. Chemical products, which are one of Connecticut's largest exports to China, will enjoy reduced tariffs, and quotas will be totally eliminated by the year 2002. Insurance companies, which have long ties in Connecticut, will benefit from greater geographic mobility within China, and an expanded scope of admitted business activities. And lifesaving medical equipment made in my home State may begin entering the Chinese market at reduced tariff levels. Those tariffs will be phased out entirely over the next several years. The enthusiasm for the benefits that will flow from our bilateral WTO accession agreement with China must, however, be tempered by the fact that there are a number of non-trade issues with respect to China that are deeply worrisome and need the attention of this body, of the legislative branch, of the executive branch, and the American people. I support the pending legislation. But I also want to make it very clear that I side with the critics of China who believe there is a great deal more that the Chinese Government needs to undertake in order to reach the standards of behavior expected of civilized nations and countries. If you wish to be a part of the World Trade Organization, implicit in that request is that you are willing and anxious to also become a member nation of civilized society recognizing the diversity of your people and the basic fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed--not by a document, a constitution, or a declaration of independence but those guaranteed by the creator of all of us. As China seeks to become a part of the family of civilized society, then it must also begin to act accordingly with respect to the treatment of its own people. First and foremost, China must improve upon its human rights performance, especially with regard to its citizens and religious freedoms. This point was extremely well articulated by my colleague from West Virginia. He went on at some length in describing how valuable and important religious freedom has been as a free people, citing the very first amendment to our Constitution which guaranteed people this right. I will not go on at length about this point, except to say, once again, that I wish to be associated with the comments of the Senator from West Virginia in his earlier discussion on religious freedom and the absence of it, or almost a complete absence of it, in the People's Republic of China. In my view, China must also address the pervasive corruption that exists at all levels of Government--corruption that is damaging the country economically and politically and could jeopardize its membership in the WTO if they persist in these practices. China must also begin to act responsibly in its relationships with other nations if it is to become the world leader that it aspires to be. China must cease its threatening stance towards Taiwan and agree to enter into a productive dialog to resolve this question in a manner that is consistent with the wishes of the people on Taiwan and mainland China. They must try to resolve their dispute in the manner of a civilized society. Particularly worrisome is China's aggressive buildup of nuclear arms and its willingness to assist other nations to acquire a nuclear capability that they don't currently possess. In response to this concern, it is my understanding that Senators Thompson and Torricelli may offer the China Non-proliferation Act as an amendment to this bill. I think that it is important to let the Chinese authorities know that in no uncertain terms that we object strongly to their continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and believe that such behavior poses a direct and immediate threat to U.S. national security interests as well as international peace and stability. Having said that, I am also convinced that an amendment on the pending legislation is not the right vehicle for attempting to accomplish that objective. In my view, the political realities are that an amendment such as this would not carry. That would be a much worse message in many ways. My belief is that the overwhelming majority of my colleagues, regardless of party or ideology, believe that the proliferation practices of China must stop. But a vote by this body that would come up short or be so narrowly decided could be a confusing message to China that we may not care about this issue as much as I think most Members do. Such a misinterpreted message would probably do more harm than good. Therefore, I urge my colleagues who are considering such an amendment to seek another, more appropriate, vehicle to which the amendment could be offered. That is the time when I think this body can speak with a more singular voice on an issue with far greater unanimity than might be reflected in an amendment on this particular trade proposal. I know that not everyone supports this legislation or China's entry into the World Trade Organization. They bring up good arguments and I have mentioned some of them--religious freedom, workers rights, human rights, corruption, and nonproliferation issues. I ask myself a question--Are we more likely to achieve the desired goals of moving the Government of the People's Republic of China closer to the kind of social, economic, and political behavior that we seek by adopting this legislation and including China in the WTO? Or by not doing that and allowing the status quo to persist? Is that going to create a greater deterioration in those very values that we seek? I come to the conclusion that we are more likely to achieve those desired goals by adopting this legislation than by not doing so. Some are opposed to it because they believe that it will unfairly enhance China's ability to attract foreign investment and manufacturing facilities to the detriment of the U.S. economy and the American workers. Others would link U.S. support for China's WTO membership to improvements in China's respect for human rights, religious tolerance, nuclear non-proliferation, as I mentioned. There is no doubt that certain sectors of American industry have fared less well than others under the increased competition brought on by international trade. That will continue to be the case irrespective of whether China gains admission to the World Trade Organization or whether the United States makes permanent the trade status China has already had for more than two decades. On the other hand, WTO membership would require that China operate under the jurisdiction of international trade standards and agreements as dictated by that organization. China's non-compliance with those standards would subject its government to an international arbitration and dispute settlement mechanism--a profound change in the treatment of Chinese trade violations. For the first time China would be held accountable to all WTO members. This I think, provides the U.S. with stronger safeguards to protect their workers. Furthermore, membership in the WTO would compel the Chinese government to comply with international labor regulations, thus increasing opportunities for American workers by eliminating many of the incentives that currently induce firms to move production and jobs to China. What about using PNTR status and WTO membership to pressure Chinese authorities into making significant improvements in other nontrade related policy areas? As I said earlier, while I have already registered my concerns about China's record in these areas, I am doubtful that directly linking PNTR status to changes in China's policies in these areas will produce overnight positive changes. I think all of us seek. There is sufficient historical experience to suggest that linkage will not cause Chinese authorities to improve their behavior in these areas one iota. Quite the opposite seems to be the case. Over the last quarter of a century, Chinese authorities have responded very consistently and negatively to attempts by others to unilaterally dictate to them how they should govern their citizens. At such times, the very issues we have cared about most--human rights, religious freedom, Taiwan's security--have suffered. Rather, it has been during periods of U.S. engagement with Chinese authorities, when we have carried out a respectful dialogue between our two governments, that we have seen demonstrable improvements in China's policies in these areas. More recently, U.S. engagement has resulted in China joining a number of major multilateral arms control regimes, in assisting us to defuse a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, and in participating constructively in international efforts to contain the escalating arms race between India and Pakistan. I am not one who believes that China's accession to the WTO is going to convert the state-controlled Chinese society into a Jeffersonian democracy overnight. However, I would argue that China's adherence to the discipline of WTO's rules and standards have a greater likelihood to accelerate the pace of market economic reforms that are already underway in China. And, as a by-product of those reforms, the grip of the Chinese state on the day to day lives of the Chinese people will become weaker and weaker. Individual freedom may gradually fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of state control. Whether that process will ultimately transform China's political system is impossible to predict with any certainty. Certainly isolating China isn't going to facilitate such a transformation. I am not the only one who holds that view. A number of prominent human rights activists in China have spoken out publicly in support of the pending legislation and in favor of China's admission to the WTO. I am thinking of such individuals as Martin Lee, the internationally known leader of Hong Kong's Democratic party, His Excellency the Dalai Lama, Dai Qing, a leading political dissident and environmentalist who was imprisoned for ten months following the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, and Bao Tong, a senior advisor to ousted President Zhao Zyiang--both of whom were imprisoned for their opposition to the Tiananmen crackdown. None of these individuals have suggested that we deny China admission to the WTO until it becomes a democracy. In fact, if we refuse to grant PNTR status to China or oppose its admission to the WTO, we will have delivered an enormous setback to the Chinese reformers and entrepreneurs who have been the driving force for the positive political and economic changes that have occurred in China over the last twenty years. We will also have given an enormous gift to our economic competitors in Europe and Asia by giving them a foothold in perhaps the most important emerging market in the global economy of the 21st century--a foothold that will be difficult for our own Nation to regain. American jobs would be the ones that suffer and American workers the ones who pay the price. Denying China PNTR would also only exacerbate an alarmingly high existing trade deficit with the United States, in my view. In 1997, the U.S. trade deficit with China soared to nearly $50 billion, making it second only to Japan as a trading deficit partner. Sadly, that number has only increased over time. By 1999, it had climbed almost $20 billion more, to $69 billion, and it continues to grow. In closing, I believe the legislation we are considering today is in our national economic interest because it will enhance international growth and competition. It will strengthen the global trading system and foster adherence to rules and standards under which we want all nations to operate. I also believe it is in our foreign policy interests, as well. China's obligation to open its markets and to abide by internationally prescribed trade rules is an important step toward Chinese adherence to other important international norms and standards which must, over time, lead to democratic transformation of that society, as I have seen occur in nearly every other corner of the globe in the past decade and a half. No one in this body is naive enough to believe this is going to happen overnight, that these changes we talk about are necessarily going to occur at the pace we would like to see. But, at the very least, we must begin making strides in that direction. For those reasons, while I will support various amendments that I think are an important expression of how my constituents feel in Connecticut and how the American public feels on a number of very important non trade-related issues, when this debate is concluded, I happen to believe it would be in the best interests of my Nation that we grant this status to China in the hopes that the improvements we all seek in this land of more than 1 billion people will occur sooner rather than later. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 234, I voted ``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``aye.'' 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 pay tribute to the late Monsignor Henry J. Dziadosz, J.C.D., a beloved friend and respected clergyman. Monsignor Henry was a priest for fifty-one years, including twenty-nine years as pastor at St. Bridget of Kildare Parish, my home church in Moodus, Connecticut. He made numerous sacrifices for his community and strove throughout his clerical live to instill a spirit of caring in the lives of his parishioners. At Monsignor Henry's retirement party several years ago, he stated, ``When I first came here, I told them that the family spirit was my goal. No one should have to cry alone and no one should ever laugh alone. In all the accomplishments, it is the creation of this spirit that I am most proud of.'' Everyone who know this remarkable man would agree that his devotion to his parishioners has made a lasting impact on the lives he has touched. Monsignor Henry was destined to the priesthood from his early years. He attended St. Stanislaus School as a young boy, graduated from Meriden High School, and enrolled in the St. Thomas Seminary, where he earned his associate's degree in philosophy. He continued his theological studies at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and was awarded the Basselin Scholarship. On May 26, 1949, then Father-Henry was ordained to the Priesthood in St. Joseph Cathedral in Hartford and accepted an assignment as Assistant Pastor of the St. Joseph Parish in Norwich. Father Henry then moved to New London's Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish before returning to continue his studies at the Catholic University of America. It was his profoundly inquisitive nature and genuine thirst for knowledge that caused Father Henry to pursue a doctoral degree in 1955. He earned his degree in Canon Law, and was subsequently assigned to the Diocesan Chancery in Norwich, where he served as assistant to the chief judge of the Diocesan Tribunal and as the assistant chancellor. Always a bright student and quick study, Father Henry was soon appointed Officialis, or Chief Judge, of the tribunal, and administrator of St. John's Mission in Fitchville. Father's Henry energy, compassion and achievement drew notice from the highest levels of the Church and in 1965 Pope Paul VI named him a prelate of honor and awarded him the title of Monsignor. Monsignor Henry first arrived at St. Bridget in 1969, and dedicated the next twenty-nine years of his life to the service of the parish. St. Bridget's landscape bears witness to the many tangible accomplishments Monsignor Henry has achieved, including the Lady of Lourdes Grotto, the Religious Education Center, the Bicentennial Pavilion, the Stained Glass Doors, the Skylights, the beautification of the church grounds, and numerous other improvements. In honor of his dedication and commitment to St. Bridget, the education center, which he was instrumental in founding, will henceforth be called the Monsignor Henry J. Dziadosz Religious Education Center. At the Parish Mass for Monsignor Henry, Father Marek Masnicki described a priest's duties, and expressed how Monsignor Henry was the epitome of what every priest strives to be. ``A priest is called to respond to the poor and the broken and in this he touches the face of Jesus Christ. We expect a great deal from our priests, and priests expect a great deal from themselves. The priest makes sacrifices on behalf of the community. He offers his humanity and that of the community to Christ until he comes again. Priests take their cue from Jesus Christ each day. All this can apply to the fifty-one years of the priestly ministry of Monsignor Dziadosz.'' Monsignor Henry was my pastor for a number of years. And while he was an accomplished man, a man whose priestly accomplishments were recognized by the Pope, it was his compassion and humanity that made him a truly remarkable shepherd for his flock, a flock of which I feel deeply fortunate to have been a part. There isn't a doctorate for ministering day in and day out to the spiritual needs of a community. There isn't a grand award for caring deeply about one's neighbors. But you will find that we often have a name for people who conduct themselves in these ways: priest, rabbi, sheik or monk. These people dedicate themselves to the service of God, and in doing so provide an example for the rest of us to follow. Monsignor Henry was a wonderful priest and he took joy in the simple daily rituals of that life. He was dearly loved by the people of his parish and he will be deeply missed.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Texas for this proposal. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it, along with the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and Senator Feinstein from California. We hope others will join us and will soon be circulating a dear colleague letter inviting them to do so. We believe that this is a very sensible and timely proposal in light of the dramatic changes that have occurred this past July 2 with the election of Vincente Fox, candidate for the National Action Party, as the next President of Mexico. His inauguration later this year will bring to an end 71 years of the office of the Mexican President being held by a representative of the Institutional Revolutionary Party. Clearly President-elect Fox has an enormous task before him to put in place his new administration and to formulate policies and programs that he believes are consistent with his campaign promises and priorities. Among the many issues that he has suggested will be priorities of his administration is enhanced counter narcotics cooperation with the United States. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe that the annual unilateral drug certification procedures have been an obstacle to furthering cooperation between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement authorities. Rather than encouraging them to work closely together to thwart the corrupting impact of the drug kingpins in the United States and Mexico, the certification process degenerates annually to a shouting match across our southern border with respect to whether the Mexican government has done enough to warrant a passing grade from us on the counter narcotics front. Needless to say, Mexican officials resent the fact the they are being unilaterally graded on their performance by us while U.S. policies and programs are never subject to similar review or criticism. Frankly, Mr. President, this year elections on both sides of the border give us an opportunity to start afresh with respect to counter narcotics cooperation next year. By suspending the certification process for FY 2001, the climate for working more closely on these important programs will not be soured right off the bat by the March 1 grading of Mexico. It is my hope that the new U.S. and Mexican administrations will make it a high priority in the early days of their administrations to put forward a joint plan for ensuring enhanced cooperation on counter narcotics issues that will replace the existing and counterproductive unilateral annual certification process with a multilateral mechanism to monitor progress in combating drug trafficking and related crimes in all affected countries. I would certainly be prepared to support an additional suspension of the certification process for a second year if additional time is needed to put in place a multilateral mechanism to ensure that international cooperation on such matters is working. Mr President, this is an extremely important issue for not only Mexico and the United States both for countries throughout this hemisphere. Certainly we need to address the problem of consumption here at home. Our neighbors in this hemisphere, that are either involved in the production, in the chemical transformation of these products, or the transportation or the money laundering have a different set of issues to address in our joint efforts to reduce both production and consumption of illicit drugs. It is vital that there be a high level of cooperation if we are going to be successful in stemming the tide and flow of narcotics that pour into this country, that result in the deaths of 50,000 Americans every year in drug- related deaths in this country. I believe that the certification procedures are impeding that kind of cooperation. We believe that the legislation we have introduced this evening will improve the prospects that this will be done. I would hope that all of our colleagues will join us in endorsing this approach.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Texas for this proposal. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it, along with the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and Senator Feinstein from California. We hope others will join us and will soon be circulating a dear colleague letter inviting them to do so. We believe that this is a very sensible and timely proposal in light of the dramatic changes that have occurred this past July 2 with the election of Vincente Fox, candidate for the National Action Party, as the next President of Mexico. His inauguration later this year will bring to an end 71 years of the office of the Mexican President being held by a representative of the Institutional Revolutionary Party. Clearly President-elect Fox has an enormous task before him to put in place his new administration and to formulate policies and programs that he believes are consistent with his campaign promises and priorities. Among the many issues that he has suggested will be priorities of his administration is enhanced counter narcotics cooperation with the United States. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe that the annual unilateral drug certification procedures have been an obstacle to furthering cooperation between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement authorities. Rather than encouraging them to work closely together to thwart the corrupting impact of the drug kingpins in the United States and Mexico, the certification process degenerates annually to a shouting match across our southern border with respect to whether the Mexican government has done enough to warrant a passing grade from us on the counter narcotics front. Needless to say, Mexican officials resent the fact the they are being unilaterally graded on their performance by us while U.S. policies and programs are never subject to similar review or criticism. Frankly, Mr. President, this year elections on both sides of the border give us an opportunity to start afresh with respect to counter narcotics cooperation next year. By suspending the certification process for FY 2001, the climate for working more closely on these important programs will not be soured right off the bat by the March 1 grading of Mexico. It is my hope that the new U.S. and Mexican administrations will make it a high priority in the early days of their administrations to put forward a joint plan for ensuring enhanced cooperation on counter narcotics issues that will replace the existing and counterproductive unilateral annual certification process with a multilateral mechanism to monitor progress in combating drug trafficking and related crimes in all affected countries. I would certainly be prepared to support an additional suspension of the certification process for a second year if additional time is needed to put in place a multilateral mechanism to ensure that international cooperation on such matters is working. Mr President, this is an extremely important issue for not only Mexico and the United States both for countries throughout this hemisphere. Certainly we need to address the problem of consumption here at home. Our neighbors in this hemisphere, that are either involved in the production, in the chemical transformation of these products, or the transportation or the money laundering have a different set of issues to address in our joint efforts to reduce both production and consumption of illicit drugs. It is vital that there be a high level of cooperation if we are going to be successful in stemming the tide and flow of narcotics that pour into this country, that result in the deaths of 50,000 Americans every year in drug- related deaths in this country. I believe that the certification procedures are impeding that kind of cooperation. We believe that the legislation we have introduced this evening will improve the prospects that this will be done. I would hope that all of our colleagues will join us in endorsing this approach.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to allow for a separate subheading for hair clippers used for animals. As a result of the ongoing beef hormone dispute with the European Union (EU), the United States Trade Representative has released a list of products upon which retaliatory duties of 100 percent will be placed. The proposed list was issued pursuant to Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000. Furthermore, Section 407 explicitly states that the products on this list must be goods of industries that are affected by the EU's non-compliance in the beef hormone dispute. Since beard trimmers used by humans and hair clippers for animals for use on the farm are both currently included under the same subheading within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, human beard trimmers could potentially be subject to the retaliatory duties. However, the personal care industry, and specifically human beard trimmers, has no relationship with the beef hormone industry as is required by Section 407. To address this problem, and to ensure that products are not inadvertently subjected to these retaliatory tariffs, I am introducing legislation that would provide a separate subheading to clippers used for animals. This legislation would prevent imposing duties on products that have no significant bearing or connection to the EU beef hormone case and would assist in the fair and equitable application of our trade laws. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this simple clarification of our tariff schedule.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to allow for a separate subheading for hair clippers used for animals. As a result of the ongoing beef hormone dispute with the European Union (EU), the United States Trade Representative has released a list of products upon which retaliatory duties of 100 percent will be placed. The proposed list was issued pursuant to Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000. Furthermore, Section 407 explicitly states that the products on this list must be goods of industries that are affected by the EU's non-compliance in the beef hormone dispute. Since beard trimmers used by humans and hair clippers for animals for use on the farm are both currently included under the same subheading within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, human beard trimmers could potentially be subject to the retaliatory duties. However, the personal care industry, and specifically human beard trimmers, has no relationship with the beef hormone industry as is required by Section 407. To address this problem, and to ensure that products are not inadvertently subjected to these retaliatory tariffs, I am introducing legislation that would provide a separate subheading to clippers used for animals. This legislation would prevent imposing duties on products that have no significant bearing or connection to the EU beef hormone case and would assist in the fair and equitable application of our trade laws. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this simple clarification of our tariff schedule.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to express my thoughts and views about our good friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell. I commend my colleague from Wyoming for his very thoughtful and appropriate remarks about Paul Coverdell. I do not have a long set of prepared remarks about my colleague, but I wanted to take a couple of minutes and express some feelings about this fine man from Georgia whom I got to know back in the Bush administration. I was chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. President Bush nominated Paul Coverdell to be the Director of the Peace Corps. Because I chaired the committee with jurisdiction over the Peace Corps and the fact I was a former Peace Corps volunteer--I think the only one in this body to have served in the Peace Corps--Paul and I developed a very quick and close relationship. I helped him through the confirmation process, and over the next number of years, as he served as Director and traveled the world expanding and enriching the Peace Corps as an institution, I developed a deep fondness for Paul Coverdell. I did not know in those days that I would be only a few years away from calling him a colleague. In January of 1993, Paul arrived in the Senate, and quickly joined the Foreign Relations Committee, and quickly became, in those days, the ranking Republican on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Peace Corps. What more appropriate place for Paul Coverdell, in that he had been the Director of the Peace Corps. He provided tremendous assistance, information, and support for this wonderful institution that was begun by President Kennedy back in the 1960s. It enjoyed remarkable support over the years. Every single administration backed and supported the Peace Corps. Even during difficult economic times in this country, there was a sense that this was a valuable institution. Paul Coverdell made it even more so because of his tenure as Director and then during his stewardship on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with particular jurisdiction over this area. I then became his ranking member, as my friends on the Republican side ended up in the majority, and Paul and I worked together. In fact, just recently, we were able to actually increase the funding for the Peace Corps. I do not think we would have won the decision here about whether or not to provide additional support to the Peace Corps and those additional funds would not have been forthcoming, had it not been for Paul Coverdell. We also worked together on the narcotics issue. We had a passionate interest in trying to do something to stem the tide of narcotics, the use of drugs in this country, and worked tirelessly on that effort internationally, through the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, to fashion a formula that would reduce the consumption of drugs in this country and reduce the production and the transmission of drugs and the money laundering that went on all over the world. In fact, he came up with a very creative idea of trying to involve all of the countries that were involved in this issue, either as sources of production, transition, money laundering, or consumption--as is the case in the United States. I used to tease him a bit because I think I was a more public advocate of the Coverdell idea on narcotics than he was. Paul Coverdell was one of the most self-effacing Members I have known in this body. George Marshall used to have a saying: There was no limit to what you could accomplish in Washington, DC, as long as you were willing to give someone else credit for it. Paul Coverdell understood that, I think, as well as any Member who has served in this body. He came up with ideas, such as he did, in the area of drugs and narcotics, and then was more interested in the idea being advanced than he was having his name associated with it. I wanted to mention those two particular areas: The Peace Corps and the drugs and narcotics effort. There were others he was involved in substantively: Education and the like. These were two areas where we worked most closely together. Paul Coverdell was a partisan, a strong Republican, with strong views, strong convictions. But he also was a gentleman, thoroughly a Senate person. I say that because I do not think this institution functions terribly well without both of those elements. People who come here with convictions and beliefs, who try to advance the causes that they think will strengthen our country, are in the position to make a contribution to this body and to the United States; but you also have to be a person who understands that you do not win every battle. This is a legislative body, a body where you must convince at least 50 other people of your ideas, and in some cases more than 60. If you just have strong convictions and strong beliefs, and are unable to work with this small body, then those ideas are nothing more than that--ideas. Paul Coverdell had a wonderful ability to reach across this aisle-- that is only a seat away from me--and build relationships on ideas he cared about. That, in my view, is the essence of what makes this institution work. Usually it takes someone a longer period of time to get the rhythms, if you will, the sensibilities of this institution, that are not written in any rule book, that you are not going to find in any procedural volume. You need to know the rules--which he did--and understand the procedures. But the unwritten rules of how this institution functions are something that people take a time to acquire. What somewhat amazed me was that Paul Coverdell, in very short order, understood the rhythms of this room, understood the rhythms of this institution, and was able to build relationships and coalitions. He could be your adversary one day--and a tough adversary he was; a tough, tough adversary--and, without any exaggeration, on the very next day he could be your strongest ally on an issue. Those are qualities that inherently and historically have made some moments in the Senate their greatest--when leaders have been able to achieve that ability of being strong in their convictions but also have the ability to reach across the aisle and develop those relationships that are essential if you are going to advance the ideas that improve the quality of life in this country. I suspect he acquired some of those skills in his years with the Georgia Legislature. It has been said--and I can understand it--when he was the Republican leader in Georgia, there were not a lot of Republicans in Georgia. And even though we have our disagreements, there is a respect for those who help build something. It is not an exaggeration to say that Paul Coverdell, in no small way, was responsible for building the Republican Party in Georgia. I do not say that with any great glee, but it is a mark of his tenacity, his convictions, his ability to be responsible for building a strong two- party system in that State. So from the perspective of this Connecticut Yankee, to the people of Georgia, we thank you for helping this man find a space in the political life of Georgia and for sending him here to the Senate on two occasions. I send my deepest sympathies to his wife Nancy, to his friends, to his staff in Georgia and those here in Washington. Paul Coverdell will be missed. He was a fine Member of this institution. He was a good and decent human being. He will be missed deeply by all of us here. So my sympathies are extended to all whose lives he touched so deeply. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for 100 years the Cromwell Children's Home in Cromwell, Connecticut has provided a nurturing and supportive environment for children. Although the Home has evolved from its initial origins as an orphanage, its dedication and devotion to helping children in need has not wavered. I am proud to rise today to recognize this praiseworthy institution and, on behalf of the people of Connecticut, extend a heartfelt thank you on its centennial anniversary. On any one day in Connecticut, there can be over 5,000 children in need of the services so selflessly provided by institutions like the Children's Home. Those children staying at the Children's Home benefit from a positive environment created by the dedicated and skilled staff. From my experience of working on children's issues in the United States Senate, I know how important it is to provide a constructive and therapeutic atmosphere for children. The Children's Home is special because it is a comprehensive residential treatment center that can help many children who are emotionally disturbed, behaviorally challenged or socially maladjusted. Through the residential component of the treatment regiment, children develop social skills and learn to positively interact with others. Children also benefit from the educational opportunities provided by the Learning Center because every student's educational experience is designed to personally suit his or her needs and to complement his or her learning style. The extensive outdoor learning opportunities, coupled with access to computers, help to provide balanced, quality learning. In addition, family therapy is a prominent feature at the Home because it is crucial to facilitate effective interaction between children and their families. All of these wonderful features contribute to the successful completion of the Children's Home goal of ``returning each child to his or her community with a more positive attitude.'' For 100 years, the Children's Home has succeeded in its endeavor and has positively contributed to the lives of its residents. One such former resident who symbolized the success of the Children's Home was John Russell Bergendahl. Known to his friends as Russ or ``Red,'' John Bergendahl honored the Cromwell Children's Home, the state of Connecticut and our nation by his service in World War II. An only child whose parents died when he was a boy, Russ became a resident of the Cromwell Children's Home in 1932. The supportive environment at the Home enabled him to overcome his tragedy and live with a positive attitude. Russ quickly developed an outgoing personality that was complimented by his physical and mental discipline. As Russ matured, he became a model resident of the home, owing much to the caring environment and dedicated staff. During high school, Russ excelled in athletics at Middletown High School and even played on the Cromwell town baseball team. Upon graduating from Middletown High School, he enlisted in the military to fight for his country in World War II. John entered military training and was assigned to the 504th Parachute Infantry Unit (PIR) of the 82nd Airborne Division. His unit fought courageously throughout Northern Africa and Italy during the early years of the War. The 504th's ranks were so depleted from these battles that they were retained as a reserve unit and did not participate in the D-Day invasion. However, John was one of only 50 volunteers of the 504th to serve as pathfinders on D-Day . His 50-man unit courageously preceded the main airborne divisions behind enemy lines to protect the vulnerable beach landings and to prevent an enemy counterattack. John did not survive this hazardous mission and died serving his country on June 6, 1944. His death was undoubtedly heroic although the exact circumstances can not be verified. He is buried alongside his fellow pathfinders at the United States Military Cemetery at Omaha Beach. On this, the 100th anniversary of the Cromwell Children's Home, it is only right that we recognize this special institution. As the story of John Russell Bergendahl demonstrates, the Cromwell Children's Home has nurtured a number of remarkable Americans, many of whom have served with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces. But whether its residents go on to become heros or just good neighbors and positive members of the Community, the Cromwell Children's Home is making an important difference. I hope the case of John Russell Bergendahl serves as an inspiration to the past and future residents of the Cromwell Children's Home and that they understand that their lives and their potential are limitless. Once again, I congratulate the Cromwell Children's Home on this 100th anniversary and I encourage them to carry forward the good work for another 100 years.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Lieberman, Snowe, Jeffords, Leahy and Torricelli in offering an amendment to the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001. Our amendment would provide $4 million in funding for the maintenance of a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, with an offset of $3 million from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) Petroleum account and $1 million from the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shales Account. This amendment is critically important to the people of Connecticut and throughout the Northeast because most homes and many schools and businesses rely on oil for heating. Last winter, the Northeast region was gripped by cold weather and skyrocketing oil prices. Last week, the President issued a directive to establish a heating oil reserve in the Northeast by exchanging crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 2 million barrels of heating oil to be stored across the Northeast. In addition, the Secretary of Energy transmitted a permanent plan that must lay before Congress for 60 days. Our amendment would fund the maintenance of that reserve and we will continue to work with the members of the Energy Committee to authorize a trigger that is appropriate to the Northeast situation. Mr. President, with increased demand for gasoline and refineries at or near capacity, experts agree that heating oil stocks will remain low going into the winter season. Even now, the heating oil stocks are more than 60 percent lower than last year. The writing is on the wall. This amendment will mean that the heating oil reserve will be maintained. Heating oil will be stored within the Northeast. Residents of my state need not have to choose among filling their oil tanks, putting food on the table, paying for their medication or paying the rent or mortgage. I thank my colleagues, especially Chairman Gorton and Senator Byrd for their interest in this amendment and I urge its immediate acceptance.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today I was necessarily absent while attending to a family member's medical condition during Senate action on rollcall votes 189 through 193. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 189, Senator Kerry's amendment No. 3839, to establish a National Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the development of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families, I would have voted aye. On rollcall vote No. 190, the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to Senator Santorum's Amendment No. 3838, to provide for the designation of renewal communities and to provide tax incentives relating to such communities, to provide a tax credit to taxpayers investing in entities seeking to provide capital to create new markets in low-income communities, and to provide for the establishment of Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), and for other purposes, I would have voted no. On rollcall vote No. 191, the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to my and Senator Wellstones amendment. No. 3837, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction, to increase, expand, and simplify the child and dependent care tax credit, to expand the adoption credit for special needs children, provide incentives for employer-provided child care, and for other purposes, I would have voted aye. On rollcall vote No. 192, Senator Harkin's amendment No. 3840, to protect and provide resources for the Social Security System, to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the ``motherhood penalty,'' increase the widow's and widower's benefit and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction, and for other purposes, I would have voted aye. On rollcall vote No. 193, Senator Bayh's amendment No. 3843 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction and provide a long-term care credit, and for other purposes, I would have voted aye. amendment no. 3838

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. You have proposed a tax break that costs $750 billion in the second 10 years. It seems to me that we ought to be able to find some room for child care for which 8 million people will benefit. People should remember what my colleague and friend from Texas says-- help out those 43,000 richest Americans.

Mr. DODD. My point is, I am for making clear changes in the estate tax proposal. I think all of us are. Could I ask for 30 additional seconds?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa, who graciously allowed us to step ahead of him in line this evening.

Mr. DODD. We can help them and we can also carve $5 billion out of a $750,000 billion tax break to help 8 million Americans?

Mr. DODD. I won't read the entire article, but it cites case after case after case of middle and lower-income families being squeezed every single day to trying to handle the cost of child care, particularly for infants. One mother says: I could make $25 dollars an hour on a per diem basis. If I worked 40 hours a week, that is $4,000 a month, $3,200 after taxes. If I take out $1,400 for my mortgage and $1,400 for full-time day care, that leaves $400--$100 a week to buy food, gas, and pay bills for my family. Most families simply can not get by on that. I will put up a quick chart for colleagues to peruse. It lays out the costs of child care in various cities in the country. For example, infant care in Boston is over $11,000 a year. If you are a parent earning $30,000 a year and have a 1-year-old and a 3-year-old, you are spending from a third to a half of your income on child care. That is before you try to pay the rent and put food on the table. The current child care tax credit helps, but not as much as it could for the reality of the child care market. The maximum a family can claim is $720 a year for one child. Double that for two. That is not an insignificant amount, but it is not enough to make up the $8,000 child care bill that a middle-income family can be paying. By making this credit refundable, families with incomes around $20,000 or less can benefit. If you are in that income level, you have little or no tax liability--making the tax credit refundable is the only way you can help these families. I emphasize again that under this amendment, stay-at-home parents with children under the age of 1 could claim a credit of up to $500. This new credit would also be refundable. So here we are dealing with stay-at-home parents, working parents, and, as my colleague from Louisiana will shortly point out, dealing also with adoption issues. Also, Senator Kohl has included in this amendment a provision to deal with employers and incentives for them to offer better child care for employees. Here we are in the midst of this bill which will provide help to 44,000 Americans. That is the universe that is going to be benefited by this. In contrast, this amendment would help 8 million families. Choose up sides: 44,000 people who will pay an estate tax, or 8 million working people who have incomes in that $20,000 $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 range--the expansion of the credit goes to families under $60,000. These are middle-income families in America, with young kids, trying to pay child care. I will end on this note. I was at a hospital in Baltimore today. I took a family member there. A woman was talking to a fellow employee, and I overheard the conversation. She thought she got the best break in the world. She figured out that for one of her two children--she couldn't afford to send both--child care would be $100 a week. That is $400 a month for that one child. But she can't send both, not as a working mother who earns around $20,000. We ought to be able to do better. If we are going to provide tax relief for 44,000 of the wealthiest Americans, why don't we try to do something good here for the working families, as Senator Snowe and other Members have proposed in the past? The Expanding and making the dependent care tax credit refundable would really make a difference for the 8 million working families who have true child care needs. I have raised this issue on countless occasions. This is an opportunity to do something about it. I yield to my colleagues.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is the child care tax credit and related issues amendment. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, Senator Kennedy, and others who may be interested in supporting this. This is an amendment we have discussed and debated in the past. It would expand the current dependent care tax credit to allow parents to claim credit for a greater percentage of their child care expenses. The amendment would also make this credit refundable so that low-income families who have child care bills but little or no tax liability can benefit. The amendment also extends the refundable tax credit to stay- at-home parents. This amendment reaches across the entire spectrum of family situations, recognizing the tremendous burdens that parents today are facing. I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared on July 6 in the Washington Post, entitled ``A Cost Squeeze in Child Care; Families Wonder Where the Aid Is,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent while attending to a family member's medical condition during Senate action on roll call votes 180 through 183. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted as follows: On roll call vote number 180, Senator Moynihan's Amendment No. 3821, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``aye.'' On roll call vote number 181, Senator Hatch's Amendment No. 3823, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to provide a permanent extension of the credit for increasing research activities, I would have voted ``aye.'' On roll call vote number 182, Senator Schumer's Amendment. No. 3822, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction, to make higher education more affordable, to provide incentives for advanced teacher certification, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``aye.'' On roll call vote number 183, the motion to waive the budget act with respect to Senator Abraham's amendment 3827, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily reduce the Federal fuel tax to zero, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.